Judicial Decisions Table of Contents
State v. Neeley, 748 P.2d 1091 (Utah 1988) Judge who previously prosecuted criminal defendant in an unrelated matter is not per se disqualified, but disqualification is advised.
Madsen v. Prudential Fed. Sav. & Loan, 767 P.2d 538 (Utah 1988) Judge who is merely a potential member of an alleged but uncertified class in a class action suit does not have a financial interest that would require disqualification.
State v. Gardner, 789 P.2d 273 (Utah 1989) Failure of to disqualify does not require reversal unless the substantial rights of the party are affected.
State v. Petersen, 8 10 P.2d 421 (Utah 1991 ) Judge who previously prosecuted criminal defendant is not required to, but should, enter disqualification.
Regional Sales Agency. Inc. v. Reichert, 830 P.2d 252 (Utah 1992) Judge should enter disqualification in every case involving firm which employs judge's relative within the third degree as a partner or other equity participant.
State v. Ontiveros, 835 P.2d 201 (Utah App. 1992) Trial judges should recuse themselves whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Barnard v. Murphy, 852 P.2d 1023 (Utah App. 1993) (Per Curiam) When certifying an affidavit of bias, the certifying judge cannot make any comments concerning the allegations of the affidavit.
Barnard v. Murphy, 882 P.2d 679 (Utah App. 1994) When presented with an affidavit of bias, a judge may not proceed further until the affidavit is resolved. The judge may not even address administrative issues of the case.
American Rural Cellular. Inc. v. Systems Comm. Corp., 939 P.2d 185 (Utah App. 1997) Judge was not required to disqualify in situation where judge's former firm represented defendant in a transaction that was only remotely related to pending litigation.
In re Affidavit of Bias, 947 P.2d 1152 (Utah 1997) Judge is not per se disqualified when judge's former firm appears as counsel. Other factors must be present, such as a continued financial interest or close relationship with attorneys.
Gardner v. Madsen, 33 1 Utah Adv. Rep. 49 (Utah App. 1997) Although judge's nephew was incorporator and director of plaintiff. Judge was not required to disqualify because nephew's interest would not be affected by the outcome.