In re Cain

Supreme Court of Vermont

In re Cain

467 A.2d 125, 143 Vt. 647, 1983 Vt. LEXIS 543

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedSeptember 28, 1983

DocketNo. 83-429

StatusPublished

This text of 467 A.2d 125 (In re Cain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Cain, 467 A.2d 125, 143 Vt. 647, 1983 Vt. LEXIS 543 (Vt. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon recommendation of the Judicial Conduct Board and no appeal having been filed, the recommendation of the Judicial Conduct Board is approved and Judge L. John Cain of the Chittenden Probate Court is hereby publicly reprimanded, 12 V.S.A. App. I, Pt. IV, Rule 11(1), (2), in that he violated:

Canon 3B(4) providing that a judge “should exercise his power of appointment only on the basis of merit, avoiding nepotism and favoritism”; and

Canons 3C(l).(d)(i) and (iii) providing that a judge “should [648]*648disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, . . . where ... a person within the fourth degree of relationship to [the judge], (i) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; . . . (iii) is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

Associate Justice William C. Hill took no part in the deliberation of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Upon recommendation of the Judicial Conduct Board and no appeal having been filed, the recommendation of the Judicial Conduct Board is approved and Judge L. John Cain of the Chittenden Probate Court is hereby publicly reprimanded, 12 V.S.A. App. I, Pt. IV, Rule 11(1), (2), in that he violated:

Canon 3B(4) providing that a judge “should exercise his power of appointment only on the basis of merit, avoiding nepotism and favoritism”; and

Canons 3C(l).(d)(i) and (iii) providing that a judge “should [648]*648disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, . . . where ... a person within the fourth degree of relationship to [the judge], (i) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; . . . (iii) is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

Associate Justice William C. Hill took no part in the deliberation of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 A.2d 125, 143 Vt. 647, 1983 Vt. LEXIS 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cain-vt-1983.