tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post7252206555276015310..comments2024-03-29T04:35:04.384-05:00Comments on Jackson Jambalaya: Berry v. Aetna: Rankin County CesspoolKingfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06184990110961727404noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-26562707931806019332008-02-13T13:06:00.000-06:002008-02-13T13:06:00.000-06:00Soms, I'm not sure what the legislation was (and I...Soms, I'm not sure what the legislation was (and I'm not going to dig through my old research to try and find it), but I remember doing numerous Motions to Recuse judges when counsel opposite was a large donor to the judge's campaign. I recall there being a dollar figure attached, but I don't remember if it was a statute or a case that imposed these "limits." We were successful a number of time because the Supremes had spoken on the issue several time. Remember that the Barbour tort reform legislation went through right about the time Dickinson replaced McRae on the Court, so some of the details are blurred to me. All of the recusal stuff happened right about the time the Supremes made that huge jump to the right with Rule 20 joinders, etc. I don't believe this practice is still in vogue, but it is a useful arrow to keep in the quiver if you ever need it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-59777116385537058512008-02-12T20:32:00.000-06:002008-02-12T20:32:00.000-06:00Mississippi Code section 23-15-1021 sets limitatio...Mississippi Code section 23-15-1021 sets limitations on contributions to candidates for judicial office. It has been part of the Election Code since 1999. I have never heard of, and cannot find in the Mississippi Code, any mandatory recusal provision like that Catfish refers to. Could you cite me a section number?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-17886512637396159952008-02-12T09:34:00.000-06:002008-02-12T09:34:00.000-06:00WHAT? you mean the tort reform act was actually ab...WHAT? <BR/><BR/>you mean the tort reform act was actually about justice and not just enriching insurance companies?Kingfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184990110961727404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-45278352447865691182008-02-12T09:01:00.000-06:002008-02-12T09:01:00.000-06:00I do not in any way defend this case, or the actio...I do not in any way defend this case, or the actions of Judge Bridges or Justice Smith (both of whom I know personally), but this problem of conflicts and recusal has been fixed by the tort reform legislation of 2003. Following that legislation, judges can be required to recuse themselves from cases where an attorney involved has donated money to the judge's reelection campaign (I think its a sliding scale: $1K for Circuit/Chancery; $2500 for Appellate Judges). This "forced recusal" has been upheld by the Miss. Supreme Court with Justice Smith leading the charge. Although the Berry case was undefendable, times have changed -- albeit slowly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-46722226591542641392008-02-12T08:37:00.000-06:002008-02-12T08:37:00.000-06:00reread the post.reread the post.Kingfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184990110961727404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-55533968609130187252008-02-12T08:36:00.000-06:002008-02-12T08:36:00.000-06:00isn't judge bridges one of the new special hinds c...isn't judge bridges one of the new special hinds county circuit judges that justice smith appointed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com