Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass'n

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 21, 2009No. Docket 133466 and 133468Published

1DissentCorrigan, J.

I would not resolve the recusal motion of defendant Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA) at this time. Rather, I would order supplemental briefing of the application of Caperton v A T Massey Coal Co, Inc, 556 US _; 129 S Ct 2252; 173 L Ed 2d 1208 (2009) (Caperton), to these cases. Caperton addressed the disqualification of a judge when a party alleges that the judge’s interest in a case requires recusal under the Due Process Clause of the federal *50constitution. To weigh whether recusal is required, Caperton requires an assessment of whether a serious, objective risk of actual bias…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  3. Withrow v. LarkinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
  5. Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Co., Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court · 2008

4 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