No. 20-954

Ohio, ex rel. Thomas E. Brinkman, Jr. v. Maureen O’Connor, et al.

Lower Court: Ohio
Docketed: 2021-01-14
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: civil-procedure conflict-of-interest due-process judicial-bias judicial-ethics judicial-recusal panel-composition procedural-fairness recusal standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess Securities
Latest Conference: 2021-03-19
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a judicial panel's refusal to recuse themselves when they are named parties in the case constitutes a due-process-violation

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED I. Whether it constitutes a violation of the Due Process Clause when a majority of judges on a judicial panel are also named parties in a case before the panel and, at the same time, refuse to recuse themselves from participating in the case qua judges on the panel so as to participate in the adjudication of the case on the merits (and ultimately rule in their own favor qua parties in the case)?

Docket Entries

2021-03-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-03-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/19/2021.
2021-01-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 16, 2021)

Attorneys

Ohio, ex rel. Thomas E. Brinkman, Jr.
Curt Carl HartmanThe Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman, Petitioner
Curt Carl HartmanThe Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman, Petitioner