Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial misconduct occurs when a judge acts in ways that are considered unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct.. Actions that can be classified as judicial misconduct include: conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts (as an extreme example: "falsification of facts" at summary judgment); using the ...
Donald J. Trump is a pending federal criminal case against Donald Trump, the president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, regarding his alleged participation in attempts to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election, including his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack. Trump has pleaded not guilty for having attempted to overturn ...
Stevenson v. Ducey. On December 4, 2020, members of Arizona Election Integrity Association (AEIA) filed an election contest lawsuit (CV2020-096490) in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County. The lawsuit challenged a total of 371,498 votes, alleging that the votes were illegally counted.
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court upheld the right of Arizona voters to remove the authority to draw election districts from the Arizona State Legislature and vest it in an independent redistricting commission. [1] In doing so, the Court expressly rejected a ...
Judicial misconduct “undermines confidence in our justice system,” said Susan Saab Fortney, the director of the Program for the Advancement of Legal Ethics at Texas A&M University School of ...
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing ...
The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201 (b), criminalizes the corrupt promise or transfer of any thing of value to influence an official act of a federal official, a fraud on the United States, or the commission or omission of any act in violation of the official's duty. [33] 18 U.S.C. § 201 (b) (1)– (2) provides:
Argument: Oral argument: Opinion announcement: Opinion announcement: Holding; The Arizona Supreme Court's holding that Lynch v.Arizona was not a significant change in the law is an exceptional case where a state-court judgment rests on such a novel and unforeseeable interpretation of a state-court procedural rule that the decision is not adequate to foreclose review of the federal claim.