In Re Fisher
In Re HUGO FISHER, a Judge of the Superior Court, on Censure
- Area
- other
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
Opinion THE COURT.
* The Commission on Judicial Performance has recommended that we censure Hugo Fisher, a Judge of the Superior Court of San Diego County, for “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.” He has not requested review of the recommendation; and under California Rules of Court, rule 919, that failure “may be deemed a consent to a determination on the merits based upon the record filed by the Commission.”
*920 Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Judge Fisher violated canon 3 of the California Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that “[a] judge should .. ., except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte or other communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding.” (Canon 3, part A(4).) Accordingly, by this order he is publicly censured.
* Mask, J., did not participate.
Cites, in this corpus
- Mission Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court S.F. 24397 · 1982-07-15
Cited by
- Dodds v. Commission on Judicial Performance S045140 · 1995-12-21
- People v. Williams S004522. Crim. No. 23059 · 1988-07-11