Legal Opinion

In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Sanders

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1998No. J.D. 12PublishedCited by 26 opinions

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

  1. Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Brown v. HartlageSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Ernest N. Morial v. Judiciary Commission of the State of LouisianaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
  5. In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against DemingWashington Supreme Court · 1987

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Sanders v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Sanders v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2010
  3. In the Matter of SandersWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against TurcoWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  5. MS Com'n on Judicial Perf. v. WilkersonMississippi Supreme Court · 2004

21 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