Case Title: State v. Lund

Citation: 168 Vt. 102, 718 A.2d 413

Docket Number: 96-056

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-01-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Lund  (96-056); 168 Vt. 102; 718 A.2d 413

[Opinion Filed 16-Jan-1998]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 18-Feb-1998]
[Motion to Vacate Denied 15-Jun-1998]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 96-056

                               MAY TERM, 1998

State of Vermont                }     APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.                         }     District Court of Vermont
                                }     Unit No. 3, Essex Circuit
James H. Lund                   }
                                }     DOCKET NO. 110-11-94Excr

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant moves to vacate this Court's decision that issued January
  16, 1998, on the ground that Chief Justice Amestoy participated in that
  decision.  Following the decision, defendant moved to disqualify the Chief
  Justice, who recused himself in response to the motion on February 13. 
  Defendant's motion to reargue was denied by the four other justices.
  Defendant now maintains that the original decision must be vacated.  We
  deny the motion.

       The issue is whether a unanimous decision of the Court must be vacated
  where one of the participating justices later recuses himself.  The vast
  majority of authority indicates that a decision need not be vacated where
  the disqualified judge's vote was mere surplusage.  See, e.g., Aetna, 475 U.S.  at 827 ("Some courts have concluded that a decision need not be
  vacated where a disqualified judge's vote is mere surplusage."); Harris v.
  Champion, 15 F.3d 1538, 1571 (10th Cir. 1994) (considering that decision
  was made unanimously by three-judge panel in deciding it was not necessary
  to vacate decision where one judge was later found disqualified); Hodosh v.
  Block Drug Co., Inc., 790 F.2d 880 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (disqualification of
  one judge would not have provided basis for vacating unanimous decision of
  panel); Maier v. Orr, 758 F.2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (same); Caples
  v. Taliaferro, 200 So. 378, 382 (Fla. 1941) (disqualification of justice
  who had overlooked fact that he had participated in case as Attorney
  General of Florida did not require vacating decision that was three to two
  by qualified justices); State v. Kositzky, 166 N.W. 534, 535 (N.D. 1918)
  (participation of judge disqualified to act did not require invalidating
  proceeding where vote was five to zero, so his vote did not determine the
  result); Goodheart,