Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission v. Simes
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPaul Danielson, Justice
While I disagree with the majority, I readily acknowledge that reasonable people could differ on this case. Here, I disagree with the majority on four specific points: (1) that there was a violation of Canon 4(G) by Judge Simes; (2) that Judge Simes violated Canon 4(E); (3) that the Commission followed its own rules; and (4) that Judge Simes should be suspended without pay until the end of his current term. Further, I agree that Judge Simes’s due-process rights |29were not violated, but for different reasons than those of the majority. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent in part and concur in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- In Re RuffaloSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- State v. LyleSupreme Court of Iowa · 2014
- In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against DemingWashington Supreme Court · 1987
- In Re GrazianoSupreme Court of Florida · 1997
- Undem v. State Board of Law ExaminersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.