Miss. United Methodist Conference v. Brown
| Docket Number: | 2005-M-02092-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-09-2006 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: PETITION GRANTED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Recusal of judge - M.R.A.P. 48B Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: Petition for Disqualification |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-25-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Tomie Green Disposition: In this suit, the Conference filed a motion seeking recusal of Circuit Judge Tomie T. Green. Case Number: 251-02-1027 CIV |
|
| Note: | Petition for Disqualification of Trial Judge | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mississippi United Methodist Conference |
JOSEPH E. LOTTERHOS, CHARLES F. BARBOUR |
||
| Appellee: | Telaya Brown | STEVE MARK WANN, MARJORIE S. BUSCHING, TARA A. HARRISON |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Recusal of judge - M.R.A.P. 48B |
| Summary of the Facts: | Telaya Brown filed a lawsuit against the Mississippi United Methodist Conference which is currently pending before the Hinds County Circuit Court. The Conference filed a motion seeking recusal of Circuit Judge Tomie Green. Judge Green subsequently signed an order denying the motion. Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 48B, the Conference now petitions the Supreme Court for disqualification of Judge Green and a stay of the proceedings. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The trial court’s ruling regarding recusal will only be reversed if the trial court has abused its discretion in overruling such motion. In the case of In re Blake, 912 So. 2d 907 (Miss. 2005), the Court held that in viewing all circumstances, recusal is required only where the judge’s conduct would lead a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, to conclude that the prejudice is of such a degree that it adversely affects the client. The Conference argues that Judge Green cannot be impartial as evinced by the biased commentary found in her order regarding an in camera inspection of documents, her order denying recusal, and her response to the Conference’s petition during the previous interlocutory appeal. Judge Green provided the plaintiff with a copy of her in camera order and copies of the sensitive documents in an ex parte appearance. Thus, the plaintiff was provided copies of the documents in question at least four hours before the Conference had notice of Judge Green’s order. The Conference had insufficient time to object or appeal. In Judge Green’s response to the Conference’s former petition she added several troubling remarks, which appear to undermine her contention that she can sit as an impartial judge in this matter. In her statements, Judge Green effectively tips the scales in favor of the plaintiff. Judge Green’s statements indicate she has already determined that fault lie with the defendants. By her own language Judge Green clearly appears to have assumed the position of advocate for the plaintiff. Given the collective view of Judge Green’s in camera order, her response to the Conference’s previous petition, and her order denying recusal, a reasonable person, knowing all of the circumstances, would conclude that Judge Green could not sit as an impartial administer of justice. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
