Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Inquiry Concerning a Judge re The Honorable Edward N. FADELEY
This case is before the court on mandatory direct review of a recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability (Commission) that the accused be sanctioned for certain alleged misconduct as a judge. Or. Const., Art. VII (Amended), § 8; ORS 1.430. In such cases, this court reviews the matter de novo on the record. See ORS 1.430(1) (so providing); In re Gallagher, 326 Or. 267, 284-287, 951 P.2d 705, 714-715 (1998) (demonstrating process). After a period for briefing, oral argument was held in this court and the matter was taken under advisement.
While the case was under advisement, an event occurred that raised questions concerning the ongoing status of the proceeding: The accused announced that, due to serious illness, he was resigning his judicial position, effective at the end of the day on January 31, 1998. As is the practice of this court when events that may affect materially the course of the proceeding occur subsequent to a case being taken under advisement, this court directed inquiries to the parties seeking their respective views as to the significance, if any, of the accused's announced retirement.
The court now has received the responses from the parties. The accused, responding through counsel, states:
“[The accused], by retiring pursuant to the terms of ORS 238.535(1)(a) * * *, intends to foreclose any possibility of future judicial service. Since that is the case, the pending disciplinary case is moot * * *.”
The Commission, for its part, states:
“The Commission's opinion that [this case] * * * is moot is conditioned on [the accused's] representation that he will never again serve in any judicial capacity. It appears [that the accused] makes such a representation * * *. Accordingly, the Supreme Court may declare the status of the case moot after January 31, 1998.”
Having considered the submissions of the parties and having examined the pertinent law, we, too, conclude that this case now is moot. Accordingly, this proceeding is dismissed as moot.
Proceeding dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CJFD 95-112; SC S44234.
Decided: February 02, 1998
Court: Supreme Court of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)