Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mayro

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that due process requires that litigants be given an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner on “the issues the decision maker appears to regard as important”
• holding due process errors warrant reversal only if prejudice is shown
• explaining the superior court need not “indulge inefficient use of time by parties or their counsel.”
• it is a violation of the basic principle of due process to resolve contested facts absent two critical checks of our adversarial system: sworn in-person testimony subjected to cross- 4 ZANDELL v. ZANDELL Decision of the Court examination
• “When the court allows no time to hear testimony, or when the time available for each necessary witness does not allow for meaningful direct testimony and efficient but adequate cross-examination, the court violates the parties’ due process rights.”
• “If, during the progress of a scheduled hearing, it becomes apparent that the court lacks sufficient time to receive adequate testimony, then the court must allow reasonable additional time or continue the hearing to permit it to perform its essential tasks.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).