Title: CARRIGAN-ST. CLAIR v. WILDWOOD PRESERVE FARMS, INC.
Citation: 2009 OK 89
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2009

CARRIGAN-ST. CLAIR v. WILDWOOD PRESERVE FARMS, INC. Annotate this Case CARRIGAN-ST. CLAIR v. WILDWOOD PRESERVE FARMS, INC. 2009 OK 89 Case Number: 106545 Decided: 11/30/2009 As Amended: December 28, 2009 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA GINA JO CARRIGAN-ST. CLAIR, Executrix of the Estate of JAMES FRANCIS CARRIGAN, deceased, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. WILDWOOD PRESERVE FARMS, INC., an Oklahoman Corporation, PAUL ECKSTEIN, individually and as officer and shareholder of Wildwood Preserve Farms, Inc., CHRISTINE ROLLINS, individually and as officer and shareholder of Wildwood Preserve Farms, Inc., HIDDEN VALLEY TIMBER COMPANY, INC., and LOVE BOX COMPANY, INC. Defendants/Appellees. ORDER ¶1 The Court notes Appellant's application for appointment of a different judge on remand pursuant to ¶2 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 30 /S/CHIEF JUSTICE ¶3 VOTE ON APPELLANT'S APPLICATION ALL JUSTICES CONCUR ¶4 VOTE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ALL JUSTICES CONCUR OPALA, J., ¶1 I write separately to explain my support for the court's order. ¶2 When sitting alone and acting without power expressly conferred by a published court rule, the chief justice is unable to exercise any of the court's adjudicative authority.1 A request made before the Supreme Court to disqualify a judge of another court calls for the court's exercise of an adjudicative function.2 The invoked statute, 20 O.S.Supp. 2008 §95.10,3 is so narrowly drawn that its use could be justified only in those rare instances in which the record for appeal contains sufficient evidence to support the allegation that the judge whose decision was reversed upon review did not act in the case as a neutral and detached arbiter of the controversy. ¶3 If the Supreme Court movant cannot draw the needed proof from the appellate record, the effort to disqualify a judge by invoking §95.10 would fail. Appellate courts are unable to give first-instance consideration to a motion for disqualification of a trial judge. That process must commence before the judge sought to be removed.4 ¶4 In sum, the statute invoked by movant in this case may not be pressed for use in the absence of both allegation and proof that the record for appeal submitted with the quest for review will alone support the factum of the judge's demonstrated lack of detachment and neutrality in the litigated case. FOOT