Law Commons^™

Judicial Ethics: A New Paradigm For A New Era, Charles G. Geyh

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

As the preamble to the Model Code of Judicial Conduct indicates, traditional notions of judicial ethics operate within a rule of law paradigm, which posits that the “three I’s” of judicial ethics—independence, impartiality, and integrity—enable judges to uphold the law. In recent decades, however, social science, public opinion, and political commentary suggest that appointed judges abuse their independence by disregarding the law and issuing rulings in accord with their biases and other extralegal impulses, while elected judges disregard the law and issue rulings popular with voters, all of which calls the future of the three I’s and judicial ethics itself …

Allegedly “Biased,” “Intimidating,” And “Incompetent” State Court Judges And The Questionable Removal Of State Law Class Actions To Purportedly “Impartial” And “Competent” Federal Courts—A Historical Perspective And An Empirical Analysis Of Class Action Dispositions In Federal And State Courts, 1925-2011, Willy E. Rice

Faculty Articles

Judges as well as members of plaintiffs’ and defense bars agree: a class action is a superior, efficient, and inexpensive procedural tool to litigate disputes that present similar questions of fact and law. To be sure, corporations and insurers have a long history of filing successful class actions against each other in state courts. Yet those corporate entities convinced Congress to embrace an uncommon view: continuing to allow allegedly “hostile” and “biased” state judges and juries to hear and decide everyday consumers’ “purely substantive state law class actions” is unfair and inefficient. Responding to the plea, Congress enacted the Class …

Questionable Summary Judgments, Appearances Of Judicial Bias, And Insurance Defense In Texas Declaratory-Judgment Trials: A Proposal And Arguments For Revising Texas Rules Of Civil Procedure 166a(A), 166a(B), And 166a(I), Willy E. Rice

Faculty Articles

Economic necessity, expanding dockets, and judicial bias and unfairness are reasons for removing summary judgement practice from declaratory judgment trials in Texas. The Texas Supreme Court adopted the summary judgment rule primarily to prevent juries from considering arguably groundless causes, to reduce costs, and to increase "the efficient administration of justice." The Texas Supreme Court could prevent summary judgment practice in declaratory judgment cases.

Texas's judges have the power to decide questions of fact and law when considering whether to award declaratory relief, negating the perceived need to entertain motions for summary relief. Trial judges must employ those doctrines to …

Questionable Summary Judgments, Appearances Of Judicial Bias, And Insurance Defense In Texas Declaratory-Judgment Trials: A Proposal And Arguments For Revising Texas Rules Of Civil Procedure 166a(A), 166a(B), And 166a(L)., Willy E. Rice

St. Mary's Law Journal

Economic necessity, expanding dockets, and judicial bias and unfairness are reasons for removing summary judgement practice from declaratory judgment trials in Texas. The Texas Supreme Court adopted the summary judgment rule primarily to prevent juries from considering arguably groundless causes, to reduce costs, and to increase "the efficient administration of justice." The Texas Supreme Court could prevent summary judgment practice in declaratory judgment cases. Texas's judges have the power to decide questions of fact and law when considering whether to award declaratory relief, negating the perceived need to entertain motions for summary relief. Trial judges must employ those doctrines to …

Judicial Bias, The Insurance Industry And Consumer Protection: An Empirical Analysis Of State Supreme Courts’ Bad-Faith, Breach-Of-Contract, Breach-Of-Covenant-Of-Good-Faith And Excess-Judgment Decisions, 1900–1991, Willy E. Rice

Faculty Articles

Consumers are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the services and products that the American insurance industry provides. Correspondingly, they are filing an ever-increasing number of lawsuits against insurers in state courts. While courts have ruled equally in favor of insurers and policyholders, advocates for both consumers and the insurance industry strongly believe “judicial bias” or “judicial hostility” permeates state supreme courts.

Some United States Supreme Court Justices have argued that state supreme courts are hostile towards insurance carriers. Commentators have also viciously criticized state supreme courts for being biased against insurance carriers. The contrary view that state supreme courts are anti-consumer …