Opinion ID: 1284075
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: judge on remand

Text: In their reply brief, appellants present newly obtained evidence which they claim is ground for a new trial under a different judge. At trial, Judge Blair disclosed that ten or eleven years previously, while in private practice, he represented the Kniffens in litigation involving trespass in the Fairhill subdivision. Appellants claim that in July 1984, after their primary appellate brief was filed, they were advised that Judge Blair was the primary attorney in the earlier case and that one of the issues was common law dedication of a roadway in Fairhill subdivision. Appellants do not allege intentional wrongdoing, only the appearance of impropriety. We have the utmost confidence in Judge Blair's ability to remain impartial despite his previous involvement with the Kniffens over ten years ago in a similar suit. [12] The appearance of impropriety, however, compels us to order the assignment of another judge on remand. [13]