Silverman v. Silverman

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Silverman v. Silverman

162 A.2d 773, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 228

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 29, 1960

Docket2617

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 162 A.2d 773 (Silverman v. Silverman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Silverman v. Silverman, 162 A.2d 773, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 228 (D.C. 1960).

Pincite

Opinions

QUINN, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing appellant’s uncontested suit for absolute divorce on the grounds of desertion. While several errors are-alleged, we will deal with only two of them. The first relates to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a divorce based upon uncontradicted testimony. After considering the entire record, we hold that there is no merit to this contention.

The other error alleging personal bias and prejudice on the part of the trial judge, gives us concern. While we do not think it would serve any useful purpose to set forth in detail the colloquy between the trial judge, appellant and his counsel, the dissenting opinion, by its reference to certain portions thereof, requires that full clarification be provided by quoting the remarks in context.¹

It goes without saying that every judge should exercise self-restraint and preserve an atmosphere of impartiality. As the United States Court of Appeals for this circuit stated: “Mild expressions of feeling are as hard to avoid as the feeling itself. But a right to be tried by a judge who is reasonably free from bias is a part of the fundamental right to a fair trial.” ² We have no alternative but to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. This is indeed unfortunate because the result, absent bias, was probably correct.

Reversed with instructions to grant a. new trial.

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

QUINN, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing appellant’s uncontested suit for absolute divorce on the grounds of desertion. While several errors are-alleged, we will deal with only two of them. The first relates to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a divorce based upon uncontradicted testimony. After considering the entire record, we hold that there is no merit to this contention.

The other error alleging personal bias and prejudice on the part of the trial judge, gives us concern. While we do not think it would serve any useful purpose to set forth in detail the colloquy between the trial judge, appellant and his counsel, the dissenting opinion, by its reference to certain portions thereof, requires that full clarification be provided by quoting the remarks in context.¹

It goes without saying that every judge should exercise self-restraint and preserve an atmosphere of impartiality. As the United States Court of Appeals for this circuit stated: “Mild expressions of feeling are as hard to avoid as the feeling itself. But a right to be tried by a judge who is reasonably free from bias is a part of the fundamental right to a fair trial.” ² We have no alternative but to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. This is indeed unfortunate because the result, absent bias, was probably correct.

Reversed with instructions to grant a. new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.2d 773, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverman-v-silverman-dc-1960.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack