In Re Wheel

Supreme Court of Vermont

In Re Wheel

533 A.2d 1194, 148 Vt. 632, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 624

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedSeptember 4, 1987

Docket86-395

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 533 A.2d 1194 (In Re Wheel) 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 Wheel, 533 A.2d 1194, 148 Vt. 632, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 624 (Vt. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant moved to dismiss the proceedings before the Judicial Conduct Board and the matter came to this Court for disposition. The defendant claimed that when her term of office terminated and she was not reelected, all jurisdiction over her with respect to judicial discipline terminated. It is the view of this Court that jurisdiction for purposes of judicial discipline attaches when a *633 complaint is filed during judicial tenure relating to acts done as a judicial officer, and persists until ousted by some affirmative legal requirement. No such ousting of jurisdiction has been demonstrated here, and nothing in the rules, statute or constitution compelling such a result has been shown in this case. Even though the circumstance that judicial office is no longer occupied may make certain dispositions inappropriate, this does not impair jurisdiction, and In re Fienberg, 139 Vt. 511, 430 A.2d 1282 (1981), does not stand for a contrary proposition. The constitutional provisions as to impeachment are unrelated to the question before us. The motion to dismiss is denied.

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

The defendant moved to dismiss the proceedings before the Judicial Conduct Board and the matter came to this Court for disposition. The defendant claimed that when her term of office terminated and she was not reelected, all jurisdiction over her with respect to judicial discipline terminated. It is the view of this Court that jurisdiction for purposes of judicial discipline attaches when a *633 complaint is filed during judicial tenure relating to acts done as a judicial officer, and persists until ousted by some affirmative legal requirement. No such ousting of jurisdiction has been demonstrated here, and nothing in the rules, statute or constitution compelling such a result has been shown in this case. Even though the circumstance that judicial office is no longer occupied may make certain dispositions inappropriate, this does not impair jurisdiction, and In re Fienberg, 139 Vt. 511, 430 A.2d 1282 (1981), does not stand for a contrary proposition. The constitutional provisions as to impeachment are unrelated to the question before us. The motion to dismiss is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 A.2d 1194, 148 Vt. 632, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wheel-vt-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack