In Re Fisher

California Supreme Court

In Re Fisher

647 P.2d 1075, 31 Cal. 3d 919, 184 Cal. Rptr. 296, 1982 Cal. LEXIS 203

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 14, 1982

DocketL.A. 31504

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 647 P.2d 1075 (In Re Fisher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Fisher, 647 P.2d 1075, 31 Cal. 3d 919, 184 Cal. Rptr. 296, 1982 Cal. LEXIS 203 (Cal. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT. *

The Commission on Judicial Performance has recommended that we censure Hugo Fisher, a Judge of the Superior Court of San Diego County, for “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.” He has not requested review of the recommendation; and under California Rules of Court, rule 919, that failure “may be deemed a consent to a determination on the merits based upon the record filed by the Commission.”

*920 Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Judge Fisher violated canon 3 of the California Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that “[a] judge should .. ., except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte or other communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding.” (Canon 3, part A(4).) Accordingly, by this order he is publicly censured.

*

Mask, J., did not participate.

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

Opinion

THE COURT. *

The Commission on Judicial Performance has recommended that we censure Hugo Fisher, a Judge of the Superior Court of San Diego County, for “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.” He has not requested review of the recommendation; and under California Rules of Court, rule 919, that failure “may be deemed a consent to a determination on the merits based upon the record filed by the Commission.”

*920 Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Judge Fisher violated canon 3 of the California Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that “[a] judge should .. ., except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte or other communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding.” (Canon 3, part A(4).) Accordingly, by this order he is publicly censured.

*

Mask, J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

647 P.2d 1075, 31 Cal. 3d 919, 184 Cal. Rptr. 296, 1982 Cal. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-fisher-cal-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack