Legal Opinion
Peterson v. Borst
Indiana Supreme Court
Decided March 17, 2003No. 49S02-0302-CV-71PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOEHM, Justice.
Appellees, Borst, et al., have filed a motion for my recusal in this case. For the reasons given, the motion is denied.
The stated ground for the motion is that in November, 2001 I was appointed by the Mayor of the City of Indianapolis as a member and chair of a newly created Cultural Development Commission (CDC). At the outset, let me state that if I agreed with the motion, I would resign from the CDC, not recuse in this case. For the reasons stated, I do not believe I need to take that step.
The Commission was created by resolution of the Capital Improvements Board (CIB). It is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense v. Arlo TatumSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- In the Matter of Bradford MasonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
- City of Las Vegas Downtown Redevelopment Agency v. Eighth Judicial District Court of NevadaNevada Supreme Court · 2000
- Sexson v. ServaasDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 1993
- Hamlin v. Government of Canal Zone ex rel. ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. AllenWisconsin Supreme Court · 2010
- JANDURA v. Town of ScherervilleIndiana Court of Appeals · 2010
- Indiana Gas Co. v. Indiana Finance AuthorityIndiana Supreme Court · 2013
- Peterson v. BorstIndiana Supreme Court · 2003
- Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.