Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:After Chief Justice Gray certified his recusal, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas assigned the Honorable R. Al Scoggins, Jr., an active district judge to sit as a member of the panel in this case. Before Judge Scoggins was assigned, Sue Walston filed motions to disqualify or recuse Justices Vance and Reyna. After Judge Scoggins’s assignment, Walston filed an objection to the assignment and a motion to disqualify or recuse Judge Scoggins. HOLDING:Each motion to disqualify is denied with respect to the justice or judge who was challenged. Each motion to recuse is denied with respect to the justice or judge who was challenged. Because the appellate rules do not currently provide a procedure for filing a motion for disqualification, the court has followed the recusal procedure to address the disqualification motions. Also, the court has utilized the procedure set forth in the rule to address the merits of the motions to recuse. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 16. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 18b lists the reasons why a justice should recuse himself or herself in a pending matter. Under Rule 16.3, after receipt of the motions and prior to any further proceeding in this case, Justices Vance and Reyna and Judge Scoggins considered the motions in chambers. None of them found a reason to disqualify or recuse himself and, under Rule 16.3(b), certified the issue to the panel assigned to this case. The panel then decided each motion with respect to the challenged justice or judge by a vote of the remaining members. No challenged justice or judge sat with the remainder of the panel when his challenge was considered. In each instance, the other members of the panel found that the justice or judge under consideration is not disqualified under article V, section 11 of the Texas Constitution, i.e., does not have an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, is not related to a party by affinity or consanguinity within the third degree, and has not been counsel in the case. The determination of whether recusal is necessary must be made on a case-by-case, fact-intensive basis. In each instance, the remaining members of the panel found the motion without merit and found no reason to recuse the justice or judge under consideration. Walston cites Justice Gammage’s Declaration of Recusal in Rogers v. Bradley, 909 S.W.2d 872 (Tex. 1995), in support of her motions. The court notes, however, Justice Enoch’s response in which he observes that four other members of the court, who were similarly challenged, neither recused themselves nor were recused by the court. OPINION:Per curiam; Vance, Reyna and Scoggins, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.