JUDGES-DISQUALIFICATION -DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY

Authors

W. Theodore Markwood, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

An original action in quo warranto was brought in the name of the state on the relation of the Attorney General who later became a justice of the Supreme Court and participated in the final decision. It was argued on motion for a rehearing that this justice was disqualified by his prior connection with the case and that his participation in the final decision made it erroneous. Held, he was not disqualified, but if he had been, he was nevertheless under a duty to act with the court when it appeared that without his participation no decision could be reached; "actual disqualification of a member of a court of last resort will not excuse such member from performing his official duty if failure to do so would result in a denial of a litigant's constitutional right to have a question, properly presented to such court, adjudicated." State ex rel. Mitchell v. Sage Stores Co., 157 Kan. 622, 143 P. (2d) 652 (1943).

Recommended Citation

W. T. Markwood, JUDGES-DISQUALIFICATION -DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY, 42 Mich. L. Rev. 1127 (1944).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol42/iss6/14