In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Sanders
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Grosse, J.*
A Justice of the State Supreme Court, as any judge, is required to maintain the appearance of impartiality. Doing so is oftentimes difficult, and requires significant restraint by the judicial officer when it comes to public appearances and remarks, particularly with respect to subjects and subject matter that are the focus of widespread public debate and controversy. In this case, the Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct determined that Justice Richard B. Sanders did not exercise sufficient restraint. We hold, however, that what Justice Sanders did and said at a March for…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Landmark Communications, Inc. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Brown v. HartlageSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Ernest N. Morial v. Judiciary Commission of the State of LouisianaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
- In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against DemingWashington Supreme Court · 1987
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Sanders v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- Sanders v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- In the Matter of SandersWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against TurcoWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- MS Com'n on Judicial Perf. v. WilkersonMississippi Supreme Court · 2004
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.