Court Opinion

ID: 9649068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:41:27.565434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:07.365980
License: Public Domain

Justice NEWMAN
concurring.
I join the analysis and rationale of the Dissenting Opinion authored by Justice Castille. Indeed, I respectfully disagree with the way the Majority applies the legal standard at issue to the facts of this case, and I also believe that a recusal for improper reasons constitutes an abuse of judicial discretion. Ultimately, however, I do not think that it is appropriate to require President Judge Robert J. Eby to continue presiding in the instant matter.
“Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly and to decide impartially,”1 and, in my opinion, it is the absence of the last element that *328compels my decision. It is evident that President Judge Eby recused himself for the sole purpose of expediting the ultimate resolution of this case. Trial Court Opinion, 9/14/2002, p. 14 (“If we were to deny [appellee]’s Motion for Recusal, [Appellee] may well pursue review on this issue and there would be greater delay in bringing [Appellee]’s case to resolution.”) Aside from the fact that, as articulated by Justice Castille, this conclusion is based on a specious concern with appellate delay, I believe that it also exhibited a bias towards Appellee sufficient to warrant a recusal in and of itself. Hence, at this point, it would be unfair for President Judge Eby to decide the issues raised by the Appellee and, while I entirely disagree with the reasoning of the Majority, I feel constrained to agree with the result that it reaches.

. Socrates (470-399 B.C.).