Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Complaint Concerning Judge McDonough

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 4, 1980No. 49278PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1DissentSheran, Chief Justice

I dissent from the opinion of the majority because in my view:

1. It was Judge McDonough’s duty to disclose his financial dealings with Neilsen and affirmatively establish that the debt had been satisfied, forgiven or transferred before the Neilsen estate was closed.

2. The treatment given to and accepted by Judge McDonough from the First National Bank of Stillwater was preferential. I agree completely with the Board’s assessment of this aspect of the case.

3. Judge Stahler’s findings as to the Costello telephone calls are sustained by clear and convincing evidence. It is not simply a case of…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re Complaint Concerning Judge McDonoughSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API