My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Ruling and Order of Justification Hobbs Denying Motion for Disqualification
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Ruling and Order of Justification Hobbs Denying Motion for Disqualification
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:41 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 2:42:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2F
Description
Colorado Supreme Court Appeal
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
9/21/2004
Author
Supreme Court, State of Colorado
Title
Ruling and Order of Justification Hobbs Denying Motion for Disqualification
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
09-27-2004 03:54PM FROM-DOL NATURAL RESOURCES 3038663558 T-244 P.007/011 F-454 <br />i <br />AbsenL an apparent conflict of inLeresL, a judge has a duty <br />to sexve i.n the case vnless she or he has a bent of minci, bias, <br />on prejudice ag«inst a party Lo the case. People v. ,7ulien, 47 <br />P.3d 1194, 1199 (Co1o. 2002) ("dzsqualification should be based <br />on bias and preDudice, or the reasonable appearance of <br />partiality, noL on technical grounds having to do with prior .. <br />. association"); People v. Arledqe, 938 P.2d 160, 166 (Colo. <br />1997) ("Unless it could bE reasonably infexred from the facts <br />alleged in the motion and supporting affidaviLS triaL the judge <br />has a bias or pcejudice that wi11 in all probability prevenc him <br />or her from deala.ng fairly wiLh a party, the judge should <br />preside aver the case."). <br />Moreover, the Colorado Supreme Court, like the United <br />States Supreme Court, cannot replace one of its members who does <br />not serve in hFlping Lo make the decision in an individual case. <br />The rule of necessity applies to siLUations where the stepping- <br />aside of one oa more Justices may prevent the court from <br />reaching a decisian. Office of Lhe State Court Adm'r v. <br />Backqround Info. Servs., 994 P.2d 420, 426(Co1o. 1999) ("The <br />rule of necess,Ly requi.res j udges Lo re3olve a case when Y_here <br />is no other co,zrL with jurisdiction and responsib:ility wnere t,he <br />liLigants may seek finality."); I.aird, supra, at 838("[L]he <br />consequence atcending [affirmance oF the judgmenz belcw by an
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.