tigger22472
Senior Member
What is the name of your state? Indiana
Wasn't sure where to post this..
I was skimming over an old thread that I had posted (before going to school might add) asking clairification on how the Supreme court could rule something and it not be followed. I have sinse learned and seen many instances where case presedence isn't followed and understand. In the particular thread I'm talking about IAAL talked about how sometimes in certain issues a judge will rule one way thinking or believing the parties can't afford to appeal the decision but even if they did that they as a judge would only get a slap on the risk... which brings me to my question finally...
How or what does it take to actually disapline a judge? And when it does happen what is the general process.
I know of two instances here in Indiana that the judges HAD to know their ruling was illegal. One was the case of a judge who ruled parents of a child could not teach them a certain religion (Might add the parents were in agreement with each other it was the judge who stepped in within divorce proceedings). I believe this is still in the appeals court but actually may have been ruled on.
The other happened in my county. Indiana is a comparative negligent state. A case where a child ran out in front of a vehicle and was hurt was brought to court. The jury assess %'s to each party and correctly awarded no damages to the plaintiff. The judge over ruled the jury and granted damages based on percentage of liability. It was appealed and won. Now, the law is very clear on comparative negligence and this judge HAD to have known this. Not only did he overrule a jury he granted something he had no legal ability to do. Had the defendants not appealed they would have paid over 15,000$.
So, who is in charge of assessing when and what do to when judges do things like this?
Wasn't sure where to post this..
I was skimming over an old thread that I had posted (before going to school might add) asking clairification on how the Supreme court could rule something and it not be followed. I have sinse learned and seen many instances where case presedence isn't followed and understand. In the particular thread I'm talking about IAAL talked about how sometimes in certain issues a judge will rule one way thinking or believing the parties can't afford to appeal the decision but even if they did that they as a judge would only get a slap on the risk... which brings me to my question finally...
How or what does it take to actually disapline a judge? And when it does happen what is the general process.
I know of two instances here in Indiana that the judges HAD to know their ruling was illegal. One was the case of a judge who ruled parents of a child could not teach them a certain religion (Might add the parents were in agreement with each other it was the judge who stepped in within divorce proceedings). I believe this is still in the appeals court but actually may have been ruled on.
The other happened in my county. Indiana is a comparative negligent state. A case where a child ran out in front of a vehicle and was hurt was brought to court. The jury assess %'s to each party and correctly awarded no damages to the plaintiff. The judge over ruled the jury and granted damages based on percentage of liability. It was appealed and won. Now, the law is very clear on comparative negligence and this judge HAD to have known this. Not only did he overrule a jury he granted something he had no legal ability to do. Had the defendants not appealed they would have paid over 15,000$.
So, who is in charge of assessing when and what do to when judges do things like this?