From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stilley v. James

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Sep 20, 2001
346 Ark. 28 (Ark. 2001)

Opinion

00-1463; 01-88

Opinion Delivered September 13, 2001 [Petition for rehearing denied September 20, 2001.]

1. Judges — presumption of impartiality — party seeking disqualification bears burden of proving bias or prejudice. — While it is true that judges must refrain from presiding over cases in which they might be interested and must avoid all appearance of bias, there is a presumption of impartiality, and the party seeking disqualification bears the burden of proving bias or prejudice.

2. Judges — disqualification — appellant failed to demonstrate bias or prejudice on part of any justice. — Appellant failed to cite any convincing authority or legal argument in support of his motion to suggest disqualification; particularly, he failed to set forth any reason why any individual justice should disqualify, neither alleging that any justice had a personal or financial interest in the cases nor in any way rebutting the presumption that each justice was impartial; in other words, he failed to demonstrate any bias or prejudice on the part of any justice; the mere fact that the supreme court had, on occasion, ruled against appellant's clients did not constitute grounds sufficient to require the court to disqualify from hearing the cases at issue.

3. Judges — each justice individually declined to disqualify — motion to suggest disqualification denied. — Emphasizing that appellant had, in his previous appeal, cited only one relevant yet distinguishable case, each justice of the supreme court individually declined to disqualify; appellant's motion to suggest disqualification was denied. [wbj]

Motion to Suggest Disqualification; denied.

Oscar Stilley, for appellant.

Mike Spades, Jr.; and Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon Galchus, P.C., by: Abraham W. Bogoslavsky; for appellees.


Appellant Oscar Stilley has filed a motion requesting each justice on this court to disqualify from hearing the petition for rehearing that he has filed in Stilley v. James, 345 Ark. 362, 48 S.W.3d 521 (2001). He likewise requests each justice to disqualify from the pending appeal in Stilley v. James, No. 01-88. We heard oral argument on the motion on September 13, 2001, at which time Mr. Stilley and Appellees' counsel, Abraham Bogoslavsky, were heard. After considering the arguments, both written and oral, we deny the motion.

[1, 2] While it is true that judges must refrain from presiding over cases in which they might be interested and must avoid all appearance of bias, there is a presumption of impartiality, and the party seeking disqualification bears the burden of proving bias or prejudice. See Seeco, Inc. v. Hales, 341 Ark. 673, 22 S.W.3d 157 (2000); Wilson v. Neal, 341 Ark. 282, 16 S.W.3d 228 (2000), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 121 S.Ct. 1355 (2001). Mr. Stilley has failed to cite any convincing authority or legal argument in support of his motion. Particularly, he has not set forth any reason why any individual justice should disqualify. He has not alleged that any justice has a personal or financial interest in these cases. Nor has he in any way rebutted the presumption that each justice on this court is impartial. In other words, he has failed to demonstrate any bias or prejudice on the part of any justice. We agree with Appellees' counsel that the mere fact that this court has, on occasion, ruled against Mr. Stilley's clients does not constitute grounds sufficient to require this court to disqualify from hearing the cases at issue.

[3] Moreover, Mr. Stilley offers his concern over the language in Stilley, 345 Ark. 362, 369, 48 S.W.3d 521, 526, wherein this court stated that "[i]n support of his argument that parol evidence is appropriate in this case, Mr. Stilley cites a single case, Hamburg Bank v. Jones, 202 Ark. 622, 161 S.W.2d 990 [ 151 S.W.2d 990] (1941)." He asserts that he cited three cases. Suffice it to say that Mr. Stilley cited only one case that was relevant. That case, however, was distinguishable from the facts presented in Stilley, 345 Ark. 362, 48 S.W.3d 521. Accordingly, each justice individually declines to disqualify.

Motion denied.


Summaries of

Stilley v. James

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Sep 20, 2001
346 Ark. 28 (Ark. 2001)
Case details for

Stilley v. James

Case Details

Full title:Oscar STILLEY, Appellant v. Margaret JAMES, Rick Grinnan, Linda Varnado…

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: Sep 20, 2001

Citations

346 Ark. 28 (Ark. 2001)
53 S.W.3d 524

Citing Cases

White v. Priest

We allowed Mr. Stilley the same privilege in September 2001 to argue that this court should recuse in a…

State v. Allen

In several states, the historic practice appears to be for an individual justice of the supreme court to…