No. 20-165

Angela L. Carroll v. Timothy W. Miller

Lower Court: Wisconsin
Docketed: 2020-08-14
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: 14th-amendment due-process fourteenth-amendment impartiality judicial-ethics recusal social-media standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-10-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Was the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment violated by a judge and party being Facebook 'friends'?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Judge J.M. Bitney of the Wisconsin Circuit Court was Facebook “friends” with Angela Carroll (“Carroll”), a party appearing before him. Judge Bitney and Carroll did not have any communications on Facebook (or otherwise) regarding the case, the party opponent did not assert that Judge Bitney was subjectively bias or treated him unfairly, and Judge Bitney confirmed the Facebook “friendship” had no impact on his Order. Judge Bitney, who stands for reelection every six (6) years, had over 2,000 “friends” on Facebook, including multiple witnesses of and the sister of the party opponent. The opposing party, however, asserted that the Facebook “friendship” between party and judge violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed. This Petition presents the following question: Was the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment violated by a judge and party being Facebook “friends”?

Docket Entries

2020-10-13
Petition DENIED.
2020-09-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.
2020-09-18
Reply of petitioner Angela Carroll filed. (Distributed)
2020-09-11
Brief of respondent Timothy Miller in opposition filed.
2020-08-17
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Angela Carroll
2020-07-31
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 14, 2020)

Attorneys

Angela Carroll
Brandon Michael SchwartzSchwartz Law Firm, Petitioner
Brandon Michael SchwartzSchwartz Law Firm, Petitioner
Timothy Miller
Stephanie Lee FinnHerrick & Hart , S.C, Respondent
Stephanie Lee FinnHerrick & Hart , S.C, Respondent