Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission v. Simes

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 5, 2009No. 09-443Published

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

  1. In Re RuffaloSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. State v. LyleSupreme Court of Iowa · 2014
  3. In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against DemingWashington Supreme Court · 1987
  4. In Re GrazianoSupreme Court of Florida · 1997
  5. Undem v. State Board of Law ExaminersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979

3 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