Legal Opinion

In Re Worthen

Utah Supreme Court

Decided October 22, 1996No. 950536, 950537PublishedCited by 72 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ZIMMERMAN, Chief Justice:

These matters came before us on the motions of Justice Court Judges Richard Worthen and Gaylen Buckley. Both requested a hearing at which they could present additional evidence and argument prior to our issuance of any order implementing, modifying, or rejecting the orders of the Judicial Conduct Commission (“Commission”), entered under section 78-7-28 of the Utah Code, sanctioning each judge for willful misconduct in office and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The judges also requested that we close our hearings to the public. We granted…

2Cases cited58 opinions

  1. Screws v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Spies v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  3. State v. PenaUtah Supreme Court · 1994
  4. In Re Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 53 PeoplesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  5. Geiler v. Commission on Judicial QualificationsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973

53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by72 opinions

  1. Valcarce v. FitzgeraldUtah Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Bailey v. BaylesUtah Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State v. DanielsUtah Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Dairy Product Services, Inc. v. City of WellsvilleUtah Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Arbogast Family Trust v. River Crossings, LLCUtah Supreme Court · 2010

67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API