In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 73-6, Dekle
In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 73-6, Dekle
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting) :
I would deny the motion and decide this case upon its merits.
Opinion of the Court
We have before us, along with the merits of this matter, a motion to dismiss the proceedings based upon the ground that the Judicial Qualifications Commission was without jurisdiction to further pursue the matter, since they had taken a formal vote which was insufficient to base an affirmative recommendation on, and thereafter the Commission received no further evidence in the matter.
We heard oral arguments on this motion and thereafter we deferred action until we had heard oral arguments on the merits. We now rule upon the motion to dismiss,
We recognize that we do not apply the law of estoppel or res adjudicata. However, it is our considered opinion that public policy demands in matters of this importance that once the Commission has taken all their evidence and formally voted according to their rules and regulations, that that should spell an end to the matter unless there is a reason shown why it should be deferred or further evidence is taken.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted.
So ordered.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 73-6, Hal P. DEKLE, Supreme Court Justice
- Status
- Published