In Re Martin
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BRANCH, Chief Justice.
Respondent first contends that the Commission erred in failing to observe the clear mandate of the Commission’s Rule 7(b) which provides in pertinent part that during a preliminary investigation an accused judge “shall be ... afforded a reasonable opportunity to present such relevant matters as he may choose.” Respondent argues here that although he received notice of the preliminary investigation, he was never afforded opportunity to present relevant matters to the Commission or its investigator. He therefore concludes that all proceedings subsequent to the preliminary…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- In Re Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 53 PeoplesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- In Re Inquiry Concerning Judge NowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
- McCartney v. Commission on Judicial QualificationsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Matter of EdensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- In Re HaggertySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1970
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against DemingWashington Supreme Court · 1987
- In Re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 76, KivettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- In Re BadgettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2008
- Matter of AckelArizona Supreme Court · 1987
- In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 240, HayesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2002
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.