The Commission is vested with the power, and it shall be its duty, to investigate charges arising out of the present or any prior term of office which would be the basis for retirement, censure, or removal of a judge under Article VI, Section 10 of the Constitution of Virginia and the provisions of this chapter even though the subject judge may have been reelected to a new term of office.
The Commission, after such investigation as it deems necessary, may order and conduct hearings at such times and places in the Commonwealth as it shall determine.
If the Commission finds the charges to be well-founded, and sufficient to constitute the basis for retirement, censure, or removal of a judge, it may file a formal complaint before the Supreme Court.
The Commission shall have the authority to make rules, not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter or of general law, to govern investigations and hearings conducted by it.
No act of the Commission shall be valid unless concurred with by a majority of its members.
1971, Ex. Sess., c. 154, §§ 2.1-37.4, 2.1-37.5, 2.1-37.6; 2001, c. 844.
Notes of Decisions
Jud. Inquiry & Review Com'n v. Elliott, 630 S.E.2d 485 (Va. 2006).
· cites it 10× “Pursuant to Article VI, Section 10 of the Constitution of Virginia and Code § 17.1-902, the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission of Virginia (Commission) filed a complaint under the original jurisdiction of this Court against Archie Elliott, a judge of the General District…”
Jud. Inquiry & Review Comm'n of Va. v. Pomrenke, 806 S.E.2d 749 (Va. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Pomrenke ("Judge Pomrenke"), pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this Court set forth in Article VI, Section 10 of the Constitution of Virginia and Code § 17.1-902. The Commission asserted that its charges against Judge Pomrenke for allegedly violating the Canons of…”
Jud. Inquiry & Review v. Shull, 651 S.E.2d 648 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 6× “The Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission (the Commission) filed the present complaint against James Michael Shull, Judge of the Thirtieth Judicial District, pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this Court set forth in Article VI, § 10 of the Constitution of Virginia and…”
Jud. Inquiry & Review Com'n of Va v. Taylor, 685 S.E.2d 51 (Va. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Taylor, Judge of the Second Judicial District, pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this Court set forth in Article VI, § 10 of the Constitution of Virginia and Code § 17.1-902. The Commission asserted that its charges against Judge Taylor for allegedly violating the Canons…”
Jud. Inquiry & Review Comm'n v. Bumgardner, 801 S.E.2d 406 (Va. 2017).
· cites it 2× “, Retired Judge of the Twenty-Fifth Judicial Circuit ("Judge Franklin"), pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this Court set forth in Article VI, Section 10 of the Constitution of Virginia and Code § 17.1-902. The Commission asserted that its charges against Judge Bumgardner…”
Jud. Inquiry & Review Com'n v. Lewis, 568 S.E.2d 687 (Va. 2002).
· cites it 2× “VI, § 10; Code § 17.1-902. When the Commission concludes, after investigation, that such a charge is well-founded, it may file a formal complaint, resulting in a hearing before this Court.”
Jud. Inquiry & Review Comm'n v. Lewis, 568 S.E.2d 687 (Va. 2002).
· cites it 2× “VI, § 10; Code § 17.1-902. When the Commission concludes, after investigation, that such a charge is well-founded, it may file a formal complaint, resulting in a hearing before this Court.”
Jud. Inquiry & Review Comm'n v. Pomrenke (Va. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Pomrenke (“Judge Pomrenke”), pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this Court set forth in Article VI, Section 10 of the Constitution of Virginia and Code § 17.1-902. The Commission asserted that its charges against Judge Pomrenke for allegedly violating the Canons of…”
Jud. Inquiry & Review Comm'n v. Waymack (Va. 2012).
“Waymack, Judge of the Sixth Judicial District, pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this Court set forth in Article VI, Section 10 of the Constitution of Virginia and Virginia Code § 17.1-902. The Commission asserted that its charges against Judge Waymack for allegedly…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.