Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Inquiry into the Conduct of the Honorable Murphy

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 23, 2007No. A06-0306Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

ANDERSON, PAUL H., J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur with the court’s determination that Judge Murphy be publicly reprimanded for his attempt to influence the testimony of a witness in these disciplinary proceedings; but, I disagree with the court’s determination to publicly reprimand Judge Murphy for his disposition of the traffic ticket. As I did in Stacey, I rely on the three-member panel’s finding that although the clerk said the ticket belonged to her son, Judge Murphy did not hear her. See In re Stacey, 737 N.W.2d 345, at 353-54 No. A06-305 (Minn. 2006) (Anderson,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Inquiry Into the Conduct of the Honorable StaceySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API