In Re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, JQC NOS. 01-44, 01-73, 01-89, 01-90

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• removing a judge for, among other things, demonstrating a lack of competence in areas of the law that are crucial to the discharge of the judge’s fundamental duties
• determining that removal from office was the proper sanction and noting that “[c]onsidered in isolation, none of [the judge’s] actions 31 As we noted above, we pretermitted whether Judge Peterson violated six provisions of the CJC, as charged in eight additional counts: CJC Rules 1.2 (A
• removing judge from office for demonstrating a lack of competence in areas of law related to the discharge of his fundamental duties, telephoning an attorney’s client to propose a settlement in a case, and retaliating against a subordinate judge
• “It is axiomatic that notice and an opportunity to be heard are the cornerstones of the Due Process rights guaranteed by our Federal and Georgia Constitutions.”
• recommendations of the JQC are not binding upon this Court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).