,

I
FILEO I
"[HO COcI1!'
, 1013 JUN 26 PM 3: 19
CLERK OF THE COURJ
fbr No. 'Hll (tempcnrilpuSI'cnkd .sof6n1n Ordtt- '" 6OIl18Y' __ '" 1
0 purr
Reoo.NV89512
Tcle InCI Fax: 7 1402
pro """ indiFnl COUll owoint to-JUnS(1 onlr. 'f IlOl pmnilt<d 10 mmoin ono's self
pt;..,;.,y couiutI, lhtn S MM"'I 01\ <:<>-<.:_1 riJ,ht Ll)"IM.""'.
'- '
IN THE RENO MUNlCll'ALCOUkT
OF THESTATEQfNEVIIOA: IN AND FOR TIIECOUNTYOf WASftOE
CITV Of RENO. )
)


:'lA1NTIFf.
c..s.No; 13CRJ9U ...., llCRl914
\)m' No: I
AI ' II l'OUGII UN:
I)En :NIMNT
- QI,.,OSIlWN TO ( IU'S MOTION IN -
:-:...:h ( "ought",. by hi", .. lf opposn lho City's m(h'I for on ordC'l in Limine
dfoclo'c Ih. the Trial ho,e;n currmdy scheduled for 20U. This Opposition '" made
ponuaoM 10 R-M.C. Rule 4, NRCI' 6O(bX4). NRC'4, 1M Nevada Supreme COWl 0,._ ill lO5eflh
TnICSdeIl VI. St..teofNt-.da.. 129 Nev. Ad,......, Opi_ 2O(ApriI4.101l) IOd tt>t tOIlowin& f'oinIs
-... .
Sw.. 91 1 P.2d 107S (AlasbCl ,f!he ownl5SlKd!he
ord(r in CNOf baaI on fKNIt $etVlId "idlihe order
mIlK obey it ..... il it is '"ttMe
L FACTS
z.dIary C""&h' in (he<einaft(t "Cloer,,.,,", is o;Nrpd wid! Viol_ion or I
1..........,....v ... Extended Order fOr PmtcctionApiNlIIaUiA ....... ",Ihc Wcdpllce. . vioIMionor
NRS 1l.lSOIlS iolCOOpooMo:I by Rmo M .... ic.paI Code Sccrion SftAmtndo:! Crirllinal
Complai.,. filed 7. lOll II IS ,.J1q;Ied mcnlia,. 1haI' The ItaIo Jllllice Coun .....aI
Tmoporary oro.. (or Ihc Api/$ 1I..--nI in rbo: W<ri:plKc on Docemba 20. 2012.
wi!h Ml t>qllralion date or J-...ry 4. 20 IJ (IUC RCP20ll..(MX)6()1).
- ,-
1
2
/he /;$ $rder prohiAited the Defendant or an agent of the Defendant from contacting
(versus prohiAiting Coughlin from DharassingD' the *tate Bar of Nevada4s Northern $ffice only
(going so far as to prevent Coughlin from even mailing in the US mail harassing materials to the
SBN, and, perhaps, any materials), reading:
D7/ 7* 0:+/8(+ $+D(+(D that you, the <dverse ;arty, are prohiAited, either directly or through
an agent, from contacting, intimidating, using, attempting to use, or threatening the use of
physica force, or other!ise interfering in any !ay !ith the empoyer, an empoyee of the
empoyer !hie the empoyee is performing his duties of empoyment, and any person !hie the
person is present at the !or"pace of the empoyer, incuding, #ut not imited to, in person, #y
teephone, through the mail, through eectronic mai $e%mai&, facsimie $fa'&, or through another
person) 7/ 7* 0:+/8(+ $+D(+(D that you stay aCay from the Cor5place of the employer,
Cherever situated Cithin the *tate, including, Aut not limited to, the folloCing specific Cor5place
address(es': 94. D$:B6( + B6-D) /oCn!city of +(N$, County of ?<*8$(, *tate of
N(-<D<D)
Chief Deputy City <ttorney ?ong has admitted to Coughlin that he Could Ae prosecuting
Coughlin for a /;$ violation if Coughlin had mailed, through the :*;*, even a non2threatening,
non2harassing filing (ie, Cith a caption, and the party names, and court name in N@"#2
%#%4,%434,%43., etc' to the *BN during the pendency of the "#!#%!"# /;$ the terms of Chich are
listed aAove)
/he "!4!"3 (;$ failed to list the *BN4s Northern $ffice4s fa1 numAer therein (and ;eters
(Chose handCriting is seen in the "#!#%!"# /;$ <pplication (Chich, Chere the /;$!(;$ are
apparently re3uested to protect her (indeed the application lac5s another Eurisdictional prere3uisite in
that it fails to list specific employees it see5s to protect' violates N+* 33)#.% in that an employee
may not apply for a ?or5place /;$ on their oCn Aehalf, Chich is Chite ;eters had to use Chite out
on the application on the page Chere she originally listed herself as the *BN4s agent applying for
such)))further, NNDB ;anel Chair (cheverria4s employees at mentioned in the D(1hiAit "D unsigned,
unsCorn, unattriAuted , consisting solely of hearsay, are not the proper suAEect of a Cor5place
harassment order filed Ay those Chome do not employe them (ie, the *BN', so Eust Cho do the /;$!
(;$ purport to protectF 7f its ;eters, then her act of filling out the application voids the orders, same
Cith Ging (and the /;$ <pplication upon Chich such $rder issued failed to list the fa1 numAer for
the Northern $ffice as Cell')
/he "!"4!"3 (;$ reads:
D7/ 7* 0:+/8(+ $+D(+(D that you, the <dverse ;arty, are prohiAited, either directly or through
an agent, from contacting, intimidating, using, attempting to use, or threatening the use of physical
force, or otherCise interfering in any Cay Cith the employer, any employee of the employer Chile the
employee is performing his duties of employment, and any person Chile the person is present at the
Cor5place of the employer, including, Aut not limited to, in person, Ay telephone, through electronic
mail (e2mail', facsimile (fa1', or through another person) (d)erse Party may su#mit documents to
the State *ar ony through the +,S, mai #ut those documents must not contain threats or other
intimidating statements)D
*erving suApoenas, suAmitting documents to courts, and serving opposing parties in a
litigation filings are clearly constitutionally protected activities under N+* 33)3% and the the
folloCing case laC: $4Brien, 9" N( #d .47, 8ayford, 7% N? #d .%3, ;oinde1ter, &9& *o) #d #%4,
Duran, #%%# ?6 "44.33")
- 2-
1
2
Coughlin4s N+* ")#3% 9otion to Dis3ualify the +BC Cas not responded to Ay the +9C
Cithin . Eudicial days, Ay affidavit, as re3uired Ay the procedures set forth therein) +ather than
proceed to filing a ;etition for ?rit of 9andamus, Certiorari, or ;rohiAition, it Could ma5e the most
sense to dismiss Aoth of these matters immediately, as the interests of Eudicial economy and Eustice
overall calls for doing so) $n that note, the "!"!"3 <dministrative $rder #%"32%" is something that
should receive a similar treatment, and the conviction in +9C "" C+ ##"7 that has noC resulted in
over a year long suspension of Coughlin4s laC license (see %&3&', and the criminal trespass
conviction in +9C "" C+ #4%. (see "9%", and the collateral issues set forth in e1cruciating detail
in "3&3' are highly suspect and prudence dictates vacating such convictions (particularly Chere the
*i1th <mendment Cas not fulfilled in either case, and Chere a multitude of violations of N+*
"7&)4%. occurred, and Chere N+* "7")"3, not to mention N+* "7")"#.. Could rightfully e1clude
any DfruitsD of such an unlaCful arrest and concomitant search in ##"7 (regardless of the fact that
the receipt for the items Coughlin purchased some H&3)&#, clearly contains the :;C for the alleged
DfruitsD oAtained from such an unlaCful search)))Aut, clearly, denying Coughlin counsel in violation of
<igersinger, especially Chere Budge 8oCard4s pre2trial orders clearly indicate that Dthe mere
possiAilityD of incarceration aAsolutely Cas still present throughout that trial of ""!3%!"", re3uired
providing Coughlin court appointed counsel, and Coughlin4s indigency application on file therein
clearly met, on a per se Aasis, the #%%9 7ndigent Defense $rder poverty levels to re3uire such, so
really, it Could ma5e an aCful lot of sense to consider vacating those convictions, vacating the
<dministrative $+der #%"32%", dismissing Aoth of these spurious /;$!(;$ violation prosecutions,
etc) as it Could li5ely save Coughlin the Aurden of filing a multitude of ;etitions for (1traordinary
?rits detailing the circumstances Ariefly alluded to aAove and some of the trouAling aspects thereof)
/he Defendant was not served this $rder on DecemAer #, #%"#, contrary to the +C<4s assertions in
its 9otion) *ervice of such civil) protection orders under Nevada laC must comport Cith N+C; 4,
and the purported "#!#!"" ;roof of *ervice Ay +BC Bailiff (nglish is not in the form of an affidavit
(true, Buc5Calter li5ely alloCs for the use of a Declaration under penalty of perEury, Aut (nglish4s
;roof of *ervice lac5s that as Cell, in addition to failing to comply Cith the re3uirement in N+C;
4(g' that such list the place at Chich such purported service Cas attempted, and given, upon
information and Aelief, that +BC Bailiff (nglish attempted such service in the +BC4s criminal division
filing office and or Cithin the Department of <lternative sentencing proAation chec52in Aoo5 therein
(similar to the purported service, apparently, Ay +9C Chief 9arshal +oper of the "!"!"3
<dministrative $rder #%"32%" Ay +9C <dministrative Budge @ardner Chich misstates the phrasing
in Nev) Const <rt , *ec as to the purported authority granted therein e1tending to DNevada CourtsD
Chere such section spea5s to DDistrict courtsD Chich is trouAling considering the clearly defined
distinctions AetCeen courts of limited Eurisdiction, such as the +BC and +9C, and general
Eurisdiction district courts, and the concomitant more narroCly circumscriAed even inherent authority
even arguaAly inuring thereto) Coughlin has and continues to ma5e an Dopen refusalD Cith respect to
his contention that he is not Aound Ay such +9C <dministrative $rder, Aut, in an aAundance of
caution folloCs it Cherever at all possiAle) 7n that regard, Coughlin re3uests that the +9C provide
Coughlin and or Couglhin and Chief Deputy ?ong a complete copy of Coughlin4s .!"3!"3 filing
(only the one that is appro1imately "3 pages or so, to Ae clear, Coughlin is not see5ing a copy of the
much longer filing)))Coughlin notes that the <dministrative $rder re3uires the +9C 9arshals
provide him a DcopyD , a file stamped one, of anything he files)))and that such order does not indicate
such copy shall only include the cover page)))nonetheless, out of respect for the +9C Coughlin has,
Chile reserving his rights thereunder, accepted the practice of the +9C up to this point of only
- 3-
1
2
providing a copy of the cover page, Aut in this one instance Cith respect to the .!"3!"3 filing in one or
Aoth of these matters, Coughlin is unaAle to find a complete copy of that appro1imately "3 page
filing, Chether in hard copy or digital format, and re3uest the +9C provide him Cith one (Chich
Coughlin Could thereafter immediately provide a copy of to Chief Deputy ?ong')
<s to the City4s contention that N+* 33)#7%(9' afforded Coughlin some reasonaAle means of
having modified or dissolved the /;$ in 3uestion, Chich the City admits Cas not even purportedly
served on Coughlin until "#!#!"#, Chere the City alleges a violation thereof on "!3!"3 (underscoring
the unreasonaAleness of the City4s interpretation and suggestion that, Cith an intervening court
holiday on "!"!"3, that it Could have even Aeen possiAle for the +BC to hold any such hearing to
modify such /;$ in time for Coughlin to timely file an N+C; .# or .9 9otion as to the "#!"4!"#
0indings of 0act in Chat Cas then still very much an active case in the *tate Bar of Nevada4s DcourtD,
and the *BN4s suggestion otherCise Aelies the utter lac5 of professionalism, not to mention honesty,
of Aoth Cler5 of Court 6aura ;eters, and <sst) Bar Counsel Ging, something the City apparently is
Cilling to co2sign, and is noC as5ing the +9C to get on Aoard Cith')
<s to that "#!#%!"# $rder Aeing suAEect to collateral attac5 and important point relates to the
e1tent to Chich the language therein gives one the impression, upon Chich they are reasonaAly
entitled to rely, that no such N+* 33)#7%(9' hearing to modify is availaAle Chere the Ao1 on page # of
. is chec5ed to indicate Coughlin had advance notice of the /;$ <pplication Aearing a file stamp
time of &:4% am on "#!#% Chere such $rder Cas granted at #:." pm on "#!#% (not e1actly a lot of
DnoticeD', and the Ao1 thereafter set of Ay an D$+D indicating an alternative is N$/ chec5, Cith such
second Ao1 and characteriIation thereafter spea5ing to some rights Dtherefore, the Court is re3uired to
conveyD as to the very N+* 33)#7%(9' possiAility of such a party (the implication is that only an
adverse party Chom the Court found had not Aeen provided advance notice of the /;$ application
has such rights to a hearing to modify or dissolve such /;$') /o Cit, page # of . of the "#!#%!"#
/;$ reads:
DN$/7C( 07ND7N@* ))(N$/(: this Ao1 is chec5ed here' /he <dverse ;arty had advance notice
aAout the <pplication for this /emporary $rder for ;rotection <gainst 8arassment in the ?or5place)
OR
(N$/(: this Ao1 is N$/ chec5ed': /he <dverse ;arty did not have advance notice aAout the
<pplication for this /emporary $rder for ;rotection <gainst 8arassment in the ?or5place)
Therefore, the Court is required to convey the following information to the Adverse arty: ("' /he
<dverse ;arty is entitled to a hearing on this $rder, pursuant to N+* 33)#7%) :pon the filing of a
motion for hearing, the Court Cill proceed to hear and determine the motion as e1peditiously as the
ends of Eustice re3uire) <t the hearing, the CoC" may dissolve or modify the $rder)
0or an +C< see5ing to ta5e Coughlin to tas5 over phenomenally suspect, and de minimis, at
Aest, alleged violations of this /;$!(;$, it sure is Cilling to overloo5 a numAer of deficiencies in the
performance of the +BC, the +BC Bailiffs, the *BN and its Cler5 of Corut, +;D Detective >truAidde,
the arresting +;D officers, etc), etc) as they relate to their respective roles in this matter and the void
and voidaAle nature of the tCo protection orders in 3uestion) *ort of a do Chat Ce say not as Ce do
type approach) < DCe4re aAove the laC, ourselves, seeD 5ind of attitude)
0urther, the +C< failed to turn over the Brady material attendant to the missing ;roof of
*ervice page for such "#!#%!"# /;$ in +C;"#2%7, in the +C<4s initial purported (yet still not
- 4-
1
2
technically served' discovery to Coughlin, Cherein the "#!#!"# ;roof of *ervice Ay the +BC4s Bailiff
<nthony (nglish Cas missing therefrom, in a tacit admission Ay the +C< that it 5noCs such
purported service Cas Coefully insufficient (the order itself directed specific memAers of laC
enforcement (not among them Cere the +BC Bailiff, Chom Ay the Cay, as parties, also purported to
effect service of a /;$ against Coughlin Ay D?ashoe CountyD, and really, the ;uAlic Defenders
$ffice is an independent contractor, as such, ?ashoe County has no standing to move on its Aehalf or
on Aehalf of any of the ?C;D4s employees for a ?or5place /;$', and therefore the +C< is violating
+;C 3)& and Brady in maintaining Aoth of these prosecutions in addition to Aeing a Cilling
accomplice to the criminal misconduct Aeing committed Ay the *tate Bar of Nevada4s $BC <sst) Bar
Counsel Ging and DCler5 of CourtD!7nvestigator!;aralegal, 6aura ;eters, Chom admit to throCing
aCay or otherCise failing to fulfill her duties as DCler5 fo CourtD for the *tate Bar of Nevada in
formal disciplinary proceedings (as Aoth ;eters and Ging have held ;eters out to Ae DCler5 of Court
of the *tate Bar of Nevada')
+C< ?ong is an accomplice to ;eters and Ging4s misconduct (Chich is criminal in itself' in
suAverting the Eudicial process in N@"#2%#%4, %434, %43. (Cith the latter tCo grievance case
numAers representing matters Arought Ay the +eno 9unicipal Court, Cith %434, per +9C Budge
Nash 8olme4s 3!"4!"# Critten grievance to the *BN, Aeing a matter Arought against Coughlin Ay
<66 of the Eudges of the +9C, as Cell as the +9C4s staff and employees, further evincing a Aasis for
dis3ualification of Aoth the +9C and +C< herein (and Coughlin4s .!"!"3, .!#!"3 and .!"3!"3
9otions to Dis3ualify the +9C!Budge DilCorth and the +C< have not Aeen responded to, much less
Ay sCorn affidavity Cithin the five days re3uired Ay N+* ")#3%, ma5ing any further action in this
matter void, especially as the failure to so appropriately respond to the 9otion to Dis3ualify that
Coughlin is herein appealing goes to the very Eurisdiction of the +9C do proceed in any manner in
either of these prosecutions', Aeyond the fact that Eurisdiction attached in the +BC originally here, and
the failure of the ?CD<4s $ffice to proceed Cith its prosecution in connection Cith the #!&!"3 arrest
of Coughlin prevents the +C< from suAEecting Coughlin to douAle Eeopardy going forCard in the
+9C)
/his matter has already cost Coughlin enormously (including re3uiring hundreds of hours of
legal Cor5 on his part, ta5ing him aCay from the pressing defense of his laC license and collateral
matters in #337, "3&3, %3%#, #"%4, %&3&, "9%", etc', as the Aail alone Cas H.,%%% (re3uiring
H&%% cash to Aond out' on that rec5less or purposeful overcharging Coughlin Cith a felony (;$
violation and a gross misdemeanor /;$ violation (Chere +;D >turAide applied the Crong statute, ie,
instead of a Cor5place harassment protection order violation, Chich is clearly delineated as a
misdemeanor on the very /;$ $rder the >turAide Cas provided Ay the *BN and +BC during his
DinvestigationD prior to ordering such arrest of Coughlin')
/he +C< itself has already admitted to, failed to alleged, or otherCise conceded that D$n
Banuary 3, #%"3, Defendant had a male individual contact the location attempting to file documents
on behalf of the !efendant)D) *imply put, an allegation that Coughlin had a courier attempt Dto file
documentsD in connection Cith the Eust minted "#!"4!"# 0indings of 0act= Conclusions of 6aC in
N@"#2%#%4, %434, %43. (hereinafter DN@"#D' is an admission that Coughlin Cas not doing anything,
alleged or otherCise, of a DharassingD nature, Aut rather in Ay Dattempting to file documentsD
engaging in patently constitutionally protected activity under N+* 33)3% Ay parta5ing in the Eudicial
process and attempting to Dfile documentsD)
+C< ?ong admits he has not and Cill not even revieC such documents Coughlin is purported
to have filed as, according to ?ong, it matters not Chether or not such documents contain any
- 5-
1
2
harassing content of any 5ind or Chether they are merely filings in the N@"# matter in the *tate Bar
of Nevada4s Cler5 of Court4s records that Coughlin Could necessarily need to file to say, move for a
neC trial or otherCise challenged the "#!"4!"# 0$0C$6 (via, say, a N+C; .#, .9, or % 9otion,
Chich, incidentally, the former tCo Could Ae re3uired to Ae filed Cithin 4ten Eudicial daysD from the
entering of the "#!"4!"# 0$0C$6 )))meaning the due date for such post20$0C$6 motions Could Ae
the very day Coughlin is alleged to have delivered to the *BN4s Cler5 of Court and the *BN motions
of Eust that very sort')
Defendant has filed herein various 9otions to Juash!Dismiss!Bifurcate, etc) these tCo
prosecutions, to Chich the +C< has failed to oppose, and accordingly, under DC+ "3(3' and ;ol5 v)
*tate, such failure to oppose should result in a dismissal of these tCo prosecutions) 7n such filings
herein Coughlin has alleged issues and errors, including Aut not limited to, those regarding the *tate
Bar of Nevada4s /emporary!(1tended $rder for ;rotection <gainst 8arassment in the ?or5place
(hereinafter D*BN /;$D') /he alleged issues and errors include the failure to serve Coughlin Cith
the *BN /;$!(;$ $rders and or their respective <pplications (and N+* 33)#7% re3uires a separate
application for an (;$ Ae filed, on a court approved form no less, and no such separate (;$
<pplication Cas filed', the Nevada *tate Bar4s failure to post a security Aond (a Eurisdictional
prere3uisite to the +BC even issuing such a /;$ or (;$, improper service of the *BN /;$!(;$ and
or the applications, violation of a DCourthouse *anctuary +uleD in the service of the *BN /;$ and its
application, and violation of an D<ttorney!6itigant 7mmunity 0rom *ervice of ;rocess ?hile
<ttending @oing to, <ttending, or 6eaving Court +uleD in the service of the *BN /;$ ands its
<pplication) 0urther Coughlin alleged a failure to ma5e a specific finding that Coughlin had
committed or presented a crediAle threat to commit and act of Dharassment in the Cor5placeD as
defined under N+* 33)#4% (rather the order merely indicates that Coughlin4s alleged Dfailure to
appearD at the "!4!"3 (1tension 8earing Cas sufficient to alloC a default (;$ Ae entered, and that
some purported attempt to serve Coughlin advance notice of the "#!#%!"# /;$ application Eustified
granting a /;$ $rder less than 3 hours after the application Cas filed on "#!#%!"#, Chich order failed
to ma5e the re3uisite finding that legitimate attempts to serve Couglin in advance had Aeen made, or
Cere successful, or that a sufficient rationale for dispensing Cith such a re3uirement Cas present, as
N+* 33)#7% re3uired the *BN Dlist specific facts that clearly shoC that Dimmediate and irreparaAle
inEury loss or damageD Cill result to the employer, an employee of the employer Chile employee
performs the duties of his employment, or a person Cho is present at the Cor5place of the employer
Aefore the <dvers ;arty or his attorney can Ae hear in opposition (and ;eters indication that she
attempted to email Coughlin a copy of the /;$ application is particularly suspect given the fact that
;eters herslef had place Coughlin on her oCn Aloc5ed sender4s list in $ctoAer #%"#, despite her title
as an 7nvestigator on disciplinary cases, including Coughlin4s and the voluminous evidence Coughlin
had Aeen sending ;eters and the $BC demonstrating the Canton fraud and misconduct Aeing
committed Ay +ichard @) 8ill, (s3) and Casey D) Ba5er, (s3), opposing counsel in the matter on
appeal in "3&3 (see also their heavy influnce in #337 and "9%"', and a listing of Dspecific facts
supporting Caiver of the statutory notice re3uirementsD)
<dditionaly, under Nevada laC: Dan e1tended order cannot Ae granted unless: ("' the
<pplication, and notice of the petition for the order and of the hearing thereon, are served upon the
<dverse ;arty pursuant to the +ules of Civil ;rocedure (N+C; +ule 4')))D N+C; 4 maintains that
service must Ae done Ay one Cho is Dover "& years of ageD, N+C; 4(c' (on the "#!#!"# ;roof of
*ervice Ay +BC Bailiff (nglish, he ma5es no indication as to Chat his age is') 0urther, +BC Bailiff
(nglish4s "#!#!"" purported ;roof of *ervice is violative of N+C; 4(g' Chich re3uires that: D7n case
of service otherCise than Ay puAlication, the certificate or affidavit shall state the date, place and
- 6-
1
2
manner of service)D) /he Dcourthouse sanctuary ruleD and the rule providing litigants!defendants and
their attorneys immunity from service of process in the courthouse spea5s to the re3uirements of
N+C; 4(g' (none of that information is contained in Bailiff (nglish4s ;roof of *ervie, ie, Chere he
purported to so service Coughlin (in the +eno Bustice Court', Chat time, in Chat manner, etc)')
Coughlin has at all times Cherein any +BC Bailiff has attempted to or purported to service him
process or any other legal document Chile Coughlin Cas in the +eno Bustice Court and Chile
Coughlin Cas in the ?ashoe County Bail, has asserted and therefore never Caived, his rights to
immunity from not only service of process, Aut also from arrest) 0urther, the +9C!+C< itself has
violated the courthouse sanctuary!immunity rule in these tCo prosecutions, as defendant in a criminal
case Cill not lose immunity from service of civil process Ay pleading to the indictment and Aeing
re3uired to give Aail) Coughlin Cas never served the summons in 39"3 or 39"4, and Coughlin4s
shoCing up to the 4!"7!"3 arraignement in those matters and prior thereto further preserving his
rights in his filing of that date Cith a time stamp prior to the start time of the arraignment further
preserved Coughlin4s rights in that respect) /he +9C has failed to provide Coughlin any return of
service in response to Coughlin4s various re3uests for such as to the *ummons and Complaint in Aoth
39"3 and 39"4 and Coughlin reiterates his re3uests for such again here noC) Greiger v) Greiger, 7
9isc) #d .9., 7" N)>)*)#d 44& (*up "947', order aff4d, #7# <)D) &&%, 7# N)>)*)#d 4%3 ("st Dep4t
"947'):
77) <9(N<B767/> /$ *(+-7C( $0 ;+$C(** B) ;ersons 7mmune to *ervice of ;rocess #)
;ersons <ttending Court or @overnmental 8earings a) 7n @eneral /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle
+eferences K #") @enerally ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, 0ederal Civil
;rocedure 54"., 4" ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, ;rocess 5""7 to "#% 6itigants, their attorneys, and
Citnesses are immune from service of process Chile attending court)L0N"M /he Aasis for this rule,
sometimes 5noCn as the DCourthouse *anctuaryD rule, is that parties should Ae alloCed to contest
Eurisdiction Cithout suAmitting to it)L0N#M ;rocess immunity is not for the convenience of the person
see5ing it Aut is for the convenience of the court, and should Ae made availaAle only to further the
administration of Eustice)L0N3M /he test is Chether the privilege, if alloCed, Could so oAstruct
Eudicial administration in the cause for the protection of Chich it is invo5ed as to Eustify Cithholding
it= this depends on the nature of the proceeding in Chich the service is made and its relation to the
principal suit)L0N4M Because the privilege is designed for the court4s convenience, it is not automatic,
and the party must affirmatively shoC that it is in the court4s oCn interest in the furtherance of the
administration of Eustice to 3uash the summons)L0N.M $nce the plaintiff ma5es a prima facie shoCing
of Eurisdiction, the Aurden shifts to the defendant see5ing immunity from the service of process to
produce evidence estaAlishing immunity Ay shoCing that he or she Cas attending a Eudicial
proceeding)L0NM Caution: 7n at least one state, the immunity rule is no longer the laC, Chether the
person see5ing immunity is a nonresident Citness or a nonresident party)L0N7M C:9:6</7-(
*:;;6(9(N/ #B <m) Bur) #d ;rocess K #" Cases: *ervice of process effected in courtroom, Aut
outside court presence and in AetCeen calendar calls, Cas not affected Ay limited courthouse
sanctuary rule, Chich provided immunity from service of process for NeC >or5 residents if such
service Could constitute a disturAance directly tending to interrupt proceedings of court or to impair
respect due its authority) North 0or5 Ban5 v) @rover, 3 9isc) 3d 34", 773 N)>)*)#d #3" (Dist) Ct)
#%%4') L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M 6amA v) *chmitt, #&. :)*) ###, .# *) Ct) 3"7, 7 6) (d)
7#% ("93#'= *teCart v) +amsay, #4# :)*) "#&, 37 *) Ct) 44, " 6) (d) "9# ("9"'= 9oreo v) +egan,
"4% <)D)#d 3"3, .#7 N)>)*)#d .47 (#d Dep4t "9&&'= Commercial Ban5 N /rust Co) v) District Court
of 0ourteenth Budicial Dist) 7n and 0or /ulsa County, "9&% $G 3, %. ;)#d "3#3 ($5la) "9&%') L0N#M
North 0or5 Ban5 v) @rover, 3 9isc) 3d 34", 773 N)>)*)#d #3" (Dist) Ct) #%%4') L0N3M 6amA v)
- 7-
1
2
*chmitt, #&. :)*) ###, .# *) Ct) 3"7, 7 6) (d) 7#% ("93#'= ;age Co) v) 9acDonald, #" :)*) 44,
43 *) Ct) 4", 7 6) (d) 737 ("9#3'= *teCart v) +amsay, #4# :)*) "#&, 37 *) Ct) 44, " 6) (d) "9#
("9"'= <+? (1ploration Corp) v) <guirre, 4. 0)3d "4.. ("%th Cir) "99.') L0N4M 6amA v) *chmitt,
#&. :)*) ###, .# *) Ct) 3"7, 7 6) (d) 7#% ("93#') L0N.M <+? (1ploration Corp) v) <guirre, 4. 0)3d
"4.. ("%th Cir) "99.'= +epuAlic ;roductions, 7nc v) <merican 0ederation of 9usicians of : * and
Canada, "73 0) *upp) 33% (*)D) N)>) "9.9') L0NM 6a+ose v) Curoe, 343 N)?)#d ".3 (7oCa "9&3')
L0N7M *ilverman v) *uperior Court, #%3 Cal) <pp) 3d "4., #49 Cal) +ptr) 7#4 (#d Dist) "9&&') #B
<9B:+ ;+$C(** K #")
77) <9(N<B767/> /$ *(+-7C( $0 ;+$C(** B) ;ersons 7mmune to *ervice of ;rocess #)
;ersons <ttending Court or @overnmental 8earings A) 6itigants /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle
+eferences K #7) @enerally ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, 0ederal Civil
;rocedure 54"., 4" ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, ;rocess 5""9 /here is conflicting authority on the
3uestion of Chether a party litigant may claim an e1emption from service of process Chile attending
trial)L0N"M /he generally prevailing rule is that nonresident litigants are privileged from service of
civil process Chile going to, attending, or returning from, court)L0N#M /he rule is especially true
Chere parties may Ae e1amined as Citnesses,L0N3M or Chere such a party is attending a trial to testify
as a Citness)L0N4M /he privilege is generally limited to nonresidents and to residents attending court
in a county outside their county of residence, and does not e1tend generally to residents)L0N.M 7n
contrast, some Eurisdictions have declined to e1tend to nonresident litigants protection from the
service of process in another action)L0NM L0N"M 9ertens v) 9c9ahon, 334 9o) "7., *)?)#d "#7,
93 <)6)+) "#&. ("933') L0N#M 6amA v) *chmitt, #&. :)*) ###, .# *) Ct) 3"7, 7 6) (d) 7#% ("93#'=
*teCart v) +amsay, #4# :)*) "#&, 37 *) Ct) 44, " 6) (d) "9# ("9"'= Durst v) /autges, ?ilder N
9cDonald, 44 0)#d .%7, 7" <)6)+) "394 (C)C)<) 7th Cir) "93%'= 6a+ose v) Curoe, 343 N)?)#d ".3
(7oCa "9&3'= 9assengale v) 6ester, 4%3 *)?)#d 97 (Gy) "9'= Commercial Ban5 N /rust Co) v)
District Court of 0ourteenth Budicial Dist) 7n and 0or /ulsa County, "9&% $G 3, %. ;)#d "3#3 ($5la)
"9&%'= 6o1, *toc5 and Bagels, 7nc) v) Gotten 9ach) Co) of California, 7nc), #" ;a) *uper) &4, 39.
<)#d 9.4 ("97&'= ;ar5er v) +eddic5, "9 /enn) 47#, #& *)?)#d 3.7, 4. <)6)+)#d "%9 ("9.4'= *tate
e1 rel) #B <m) Bur) #d ;rocess K #7 @arner v) @arvin, "4. ?) -a) &#%, ""7 *)()#d .#" ("9%') <
federal court is not foreign to a court of the state in Chich it sits, so as to Ae aAle to ta5e Eurisdiction
of an action against a nonresident on Chom process is served Chen in the state, attending on the state
court as a party to a suit pending therein) ;age Co) v) 9acDonald, #" :)*) 44, 43 *) Ct) 4", 7 6)
(d) 737 ("9#3') L0N3M 9ertens v) 9c9ahon, 334 9o) "7., *)?)#d "#7, 93 <)6)+) "#&. ("933')
L0N4M 6ong v) 8aC5en, ""4 9d) #34, 79 <) "9% ("9""'= Diamond v) (arle, #"7 9ass) 499, "%. N)()
33 ("9"4') L0N.M 0isher v) Bouchelle, "34 ?) -a) 333, " *)()#d 3%. ("9.%') <s to the privilege of
person outside oCn county, see K 3%) L0NM *ilverman v) *uperior Court, #%3 Cal) <pp) 3d "4., #49
Cal) +ptr) 7#4 (#d Dist) "9&&'= 6acharite v) District Court of 0ifth Budicial Dist), in and for Bannoc5
County, 74 7daho ., #. ;)#d 7&7 ("9.3'= 9ertens v) 9c9ahon, 334 9o) "7., *)?)#d "#7, 93
<)6)+) "#&. ("933') K #&) ;arties Cho may claim privilege ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey
NumAer Digest, 0ederal Civil ;rocedure 54"., 4" ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, ;rocess 5""9 /he
rule of immunity of litigants from a foreign Eurisdiction from the service of process Chile attending
court typically includes Aoth plaintiffs and defendants)L0N"M /here is authority, hoCever, to the effect
that nonresident plaintiffs are not privileged from the service of process,L0N#M on the theory that a
plaintiff Cho voluntarily see5s the aid and protection of courts of another state should not Ae shielded
from the processes of those courts, a condition Chich should not apply to a defendant Chose
attendance is compulsory)L0N3M 9oreover, some courts, Chile usually e1tending the e1emption to
nonresident plaintiffs, hold that nonresident plaintiffs Cho voluntarily come Cithin the Eurisdiction of
- 8-
1
2
the courts of a state to attend the trial of litigation commenced Ay them against citiIens of that state
are not e1empt from service of a summons in an action Ay defendants for relief connected Cith the
suAEect of the litigation commenced Ay them, Chere a full and complete adEustment of the rights of
the parties cannot Ae had in the first action, and Chere full relief Could Ae denied the citiIens of that
state in courts of the state of the plaintiffs4 residence)L0N4M L0N"M *teCart v) +amsay, #4# :)*) "#&,
37 *) Ct) 44, " 6) (d) "9# ("9"'= 9arloCe v) Baird, 3%" 0)#d "9 (th Cir) "9#'= 6yf2<lum, 7nc) v)
C N 9 <luminum *upply Corp), #9 ?is) #d .93, "39 N)?)#d %" ("9'= *tate v) District Court of
(ighth Budicial Dist) in and for Cascade County, 73 9ont) #., #3. ;) 7 ("9#.') L0N#M ?ilson
*eCing 9ach) Co) v) ?ilson, ." Conn) .9., "&&4 ?6 "%.3 ("&&4'= 6ivengood v) Ball, "9" $G
"%%&, 3 $5la) 93, "# ;) 7& ("9"') #B <m) Bur) #d ;rocess K #& L0N3M ?ilson *eCing 9ach) Co)
v) ?ilson, ." Conn) .9., "&&4 ?6 "%.3 ("&&4') L0N4M +iIo v) Burruel, #3 <riI) "37, #%# ;) #34, "9
<)6)+) &#3 ("9#"') Nonresident clients4 legal malpractice suit against their former attorney Cas
directly connected to a suAse3uent case Arought Ay their attorney against third parties in that it
stemmed from the underlying suit in Chich attorney initially represented these clients, and thus
clients Cho Arought themselves Cithin the Eurisdiction of the state Chen they filed their original
laCsuit Cere not immune from service of process, even though they Cere suApoenaed to give their
depositions in the suAse3uent case as they Caited in the airport to return home folloCing their
depositions in the legal malpractice suit) -ega v) Davila, 3" *)?)3d 37 (/e1) <pp) Corpus Christi
#%%%') 77) <9(N<B767/> /$ *(+-7C( $0 ;+$C(** B) ;ersons 7mmune to *ervice of ;rocess #)
;ersons <ttending Court or @overnmental 8earings c) <ttorneys /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle
+eferences K 3.) @enerally ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, 0ederal Civil
;rocedure 54"., 4" ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, ;rocess 5""7, ""& <ttorneys at laC at times enEoy
certain privileges and e1emptions not generally enEoyed Ay lay persons, Chen they are considered
necessary for the due administration of Eustice and the protection of a client4s rights)L0N"M <t
common laC, an attorney Cas e1empt from the service of civil process Chile attending court)L0N#M
Currently, Chether an attorney at laC is e1empt from the service of process in a civil action Chile
attending court may turn upon the attorney4s residence Cithin the state or county of suit) 7mmunity
from the service of civil process has Aeen e1tended to a nonresident attorney Chile going to,
remaining at, or returning from the place Chere the client4s Ausiness is transacted, upon the ground
that the administration of Eustice demands such an e1emption,L0N3M even though resident attorneys
have no such immunity)L0N4M *ome Eurisdictions ta5e the vieC that an attorney is privileged from the
service of process Chile attending court in a professional capacity in a county other than the county
of his or her residence,L0N.M Chile others hold that the attorney is not immune from service)L0NM
L0N"M <m) Bur) #d, <ttorneys at 6aC K "9) L0N#M 6ong v) <nsell, #93 :)*) 7, .. *) Ct) #", 79 6)
(d) #%& ("934'= 6amA v) *chmitt, #&. :)*) ###, .# *) Ct) 3"7, 7 6) (d) 7#% ("93#') #B <m) Bur) #d
;rocess K 3. L0N3M Durst v) /autges, ?ilder N 9cDonald, 44 0)#d .%7, 7" <)6)+) "394 (C)C)<) 7th
Cir) "93%') L0N4M ?illiams v) 8atcher, 9. *)C) 49, 7& *)() ". ("9"3') L0N.M <da Dairy ;roducts Co)
v) *uperior Court, *eminole County, #.& ;)#d 939 ($5la) "9.3' (holding that a duly licensed and
practicing attorney of one county, Chile present in another county to represent the client, may not Ae
served Cith summons of a suit against a corporation of Chich he is the president, in the second
county') L0NM ;ar5er v) +eddic5, "9 /enn) 47#, #& *)?)#d 3.7, 4. <)6)+)#d "%9 ("9.4')
/he case in Chich the /;$!(;$ in 3uestion Chere purportedly served Cas a case of a civil
nature in +BC +C;"#2%7) *uch matters are handled in the civil division of the +BC4s 0iling $ffices)
0urther, Coughlin is an Cas an attorney at all times in 3uestion) N*C/ case %&3& has temporarily
suspended Coughlin4s laC license in Nevada, Aut a temporarily suspended attorney is still an attorney)
0urther Coughlin4s laC license Aefore the :nited *tates ;atent and /rademar5 $ffice as a patent
- 9-
1
2
attorney is not suspended in any manner Chatsoever) <* such the immunity accorded attorneys
(Aeyond that accorded to defendants!litigants' applies here as Cell)
7n some Eurisdictions, service of process Cill Ae set aside on proper application Chere effected
through misrepresentation or unfair advantage even though the nonresident is Cithin the Eurisdiction
voluntarily) Buchanan v) ?ilson, #.4 0)#d &49, $hio $p) #d #9&, &% $hio 6) <As) "33 (th Cir)
"9.&'= *unshine Gitchens, 7nc) v) <lanthus Corp), . 0)+)D) 4 (*)D) 0la) "974'= ;atino v) ;atino, #&3
<)D) 3%, "#9 N)>)*)#d 333 ("st Dep4t "9.4') /he +BC has continually coordinated an effort Cith the
*BN to preEudice Coughlin, Aeyond the Alatant violations of *hepp v *tate in +C+""2%334", the
failure to respond to upCards of five different 9otions to Dis3ualify in +C+""2%334", +C+"#2
%.3%, +C+"32%7#7., the violations of the mandatory stay under N+* "7&)4%., the +;D *argent
*ifre admission on the propounded to late not to violate Brady audio of "#!.!"# detailing the
complicity admitted to AetCeen the +;D and +BC as to the Crongful evictions!arrests!prosecutions of
Coughlin during the "!"4!"# arrest in +C+"#2%.3% (see the ensuing Crongful eviction of 3!".!"#
in +ev"#2374, then consider hoC impressive it Cas for Coughlin to file that 3!"9!"# $pposition to
9otion for *ummary Budgment in N-B ""2%.%7& /aitano v @essin, then the ine3uity of N-B Budge
Beesley4s testimony as to Coughlin4s appearance Aefore him on 3!".!"# Eust minutes after the ?ashoe
Coutny *heriff4s $ffice violated (as it routinely does' Nevada laC re3uiring the ?C*$ post a #4 hour
loc5out $rder on an evicted tenant4s door, then Cait #4 hours Aefore returning to effect the loc5out
under N+* 4%)#.3 (and consider the ine3uity of +9C Budge @ardner ruling such matters immaterial
to Coughlin4s criminal trespass conviction at his former home laC offiice case in +9C "" C+ #4%.
(see N*C/ "9%" and #337 and the enormously negative collateral conse3uences of such, then
compare the e1tent to Chich Budge @ardner freely alloCed +C< 8aIlett to AorroC from civil eviction
laC and that civil eviction case to support his prosecution, Chilst denying Coughlin any mention
thereof')
/he 9ay Court, citied Ay the ;anel in /ruesdell for support of its ruling, held that a defendant
may attac5 a domestic violence protective order in a later prosecution for a violation of the order if
the order is void) 9ay at &.#2&.3) <n order is void if the issuing court does not folloC the procedures
in place for the issuance of the order) *ee 6as -egas Novelty, 7nc) v) 0ernandeI, "% Nev) ""3, ""&2
""9 (l99%'(court did not state reasons for the inEunction Cithin the order and the order did not
ade3uately descriAe the acts to Ae restrained') /hus, the . day e1 parte /;$ in this case is void
Aecause the issuing court did not folloC the rules ofN+* 33)#7%, and N+* 33)#4%, 33)#.%) /he 9ay
Court not only alloCed a defendant to attac5 an order that Cas void, it also alloCed a defendant to
attac5 the order as folloCs: L?Me clarify that, in a proceeding for violation of a court order, the trial
court4s gate25eeping role includes e1cluding orders that are void, orders that are inapplicaAle to the
crime charged (i)e), the order either does not apply to the defendant or does not apply to the charged
conduct', and orders that cannot Ae constitutionally applied to the charged conduct (e)g), orders that
fail to give the restrained party fair Carning of the relevant prohiAited conduct') 9ay at &.4)
0urther, the /;$ application Cas violative of the re3uirement that one4s employer file it on
Aehalf of a specific employee (as 6aura ;eters filled it out originally in her oCn handCriting then
used Chite out over her signature)))replacing it Cith ;at Ging4s, and regardless, the /;$!(;$ sought
to protect them Aoth, and authority to so file such an application necessarily needed to Ae issued Ay a
memAer of the *BN4s Board of Directors (or possiAly, even, ?atters and *C+ 99, the Nevada
*upreme Court, as the *BN is merely an Darm of the CourtD, not merely upon ;at Ging, or even
David Clar54s permission', Chom Could then need to file such application on Aehalf of such
employees as Ging or ;eters or Chatever unnamed employee the +C;"#2%7 application purports to,
- 10-
1
2
in all its unattriAuted hearsay and vagueness, see5 protection for (NNDB ;anel Chair (cheverria4s
staff, non2sensically, seems to Ae the party for Chom the *BN is see5ing protection, for Chich,
clearly, its lac5s standing to apply for one on Aehalf of (cheverria, his staff, or anyone Cith the
NNDB', Aeyond that the *BN4s /;$ application fails to comply Cith the statutory re3uirement that it
specifically name Chich employees it see5s to protect and Chy, or provide an factual specifics as to
Chy such an application is Eustified') 0urther, the *BN4s /;$ <pplication failed to contain a
verification and or a sCorn Declaration as to any facts Chatsoever, much less of the level necessary to
satisfy N+* 33)#.%) *imply put, nothing in any of the (1hiAits or the (1hiAit " D*ummaryD attached
to the *BN4s /;$ is incorporated Ay reference into the & page /;$ <pplication4s verfication (neither
the re3uired incorporating language is included, nor are the materials contained in the (1hiAit "
placed on the statutorily, court mandated DContinuationD ;age, not to mention that the <pplication
and (1hiAit " contain aAsolutely no attriAution as to Chom purportedly Crote the D*ummaryD in
(1hiAit " to the /;$ <pplication (and curiously, especially Chere the employee for Chom the
employer is purportedly see5ing the protection (apparently 6aura ;etersF' is precluded from applying
for such protection on their oCn Aehalf, the D*ummaryD in (1hiAit " of the /;$ <pplication refers to
;at Ging in the third person, Chich is strange considering its is Gign signing the verification on page
& of the /;$ <pplication and there is otherCise no attriAution for the Criter of the D*ummaryD
included in (1hiAit " of the /;$ applciation (Chich consists almost of unattriAuted hearsay alluding
to unnamed non *BN employees in vague, unsupported terms')
II, (-.+MENT
Bac5o v) *tate, 9&" ;)#d "%7. (<las5a Ct) <pp) "999'(finding that even if the court issued the
order in error Aased on factual misrepresentatiom Ay the petitioner, the person served Cith the order
must oAey it until it is reversee or vacated unless the court lac5ed suAEect matter over the person or
the matter= hoCever, the court gave a limiting instructing at trial'=
Coughlin has the right to challenge the issuance of the /;$ admitted during his trial) *tate v 4
$rton, "37 $r) <pp) 339 ("99.'(defendant may attac5 a statute and protectiv(order that is facially
vague'= $lson v) *tate, 77 ;)3d "., "9 (<las5a Ct) <pp) #%%3' (defendant may challenge the issuance
of a protective order Chen the Eudg failed to folloC the statutory guidelines for notice'= *tate v) 9ott,
" -t) "& "9"29# ("997'( alloCing a defendant to collateral attac5 an aAuse prevention order Aased
on constitutional violations') 9oreover, if Coughlin is not alloCed to challenge the . day e1 parte
?or5place 8arassment /;$ under N+* 33)#7% or in his criminal case the the procedures set forth in
N+* 3%)#7%(9' are unconstitutional and violate due process Aecause there are no methods Ay Chich
Coughlin can challenge or test th validity of a . day e1 parte /;$ issued against him)
But the validity of a protective order is an implicit element of a violation of a protective order)
Com) v) *ilva, 43" 9ass) 4%", 4%324 (#%%%')
/he +C< as5s this Court to Aelieve that Coughlin should have DcontactedD the *BN in the
same manner in Chich it alleges Coughlin violated the /;$!(;$ in 3uestion her to pursue some N+*
33)#7%(9' relief, as if that Could have Aeen considered acceptaAle under N+* 33)3% or not otherCise
resulted in a prosecution of e1actly the same nature currently in place in 39"3 and 39"4) +ight)
/hat is to say nothing of the complete lac5 of ade3uate time to so pursue such relief Dupon tCo days
notice to the adverse partyD (to say nothing of the e1tremely circuscriAed period of time in Chich
Coughlin Cas re3uired to address to Alatant *C+ "%.(#' violating allegations and DComplaintD Ay the
*BN, carried out in a Dformal disciplinary panelD in an e1tremely rec5less and negligent manner Ay a
;anel that had a patent Aias even further revealed Ay its completely and utterly aAsconding from its
duties to accord the proceeding the procedural protections re3uired)
- 11-
1
2
*ee N+* 33)#7%(9' (:pon # days4 notice to an employer Cho oAtained a temporary order for
protection against harassment in the Cor5place Cithout notice or on such shorter notice to the
employer as the court may prescriAe) the person Cho allegedly committed the harassment may appear
and move the dissolution or modification of the temporary order for protection against harassment in
the Cor5place)' 8oCever, rememAer, the /;$ in 3uestion purported to prohiAit Coughlin from
DcontactingD the *BN Ay any means Chatsoever, including Ay simply mailing something to the SBN)
-oid for vagueness and unconsituttionalyy void regardless, the +C<4s interpretation of the "#!#%!"#
/;$ Could prohiAit Coughlin from even mailing a non2threatening pleading or other filing to the
very DcourtD in Chich his formal disciplinary hearing Cas ongoing) /he *BN4s preposterous
allegation that Coughlin had Dno Ausiness Cith the *BN anymoreD in reference to the hearing having
ta5en place and the 0$0C$6 Aeing entered on "#!"4!"# is Aeyond ridiculous) 7ssues relate to post2
hearing Ariefing (Chich the ;anel Chair e1pressly provided permission to Coughlin to file, especially
Cith respect to the issue as to Chether Coughlin ever filed or otherCise suAmitted a Dverified ansCerD
to the &!#3!"# Complaint therein', and to the sufficiency of the record on appeal in #337 (Chich had
Aeen doc5eted as of "#!#4!"# and re3uired immediate interaction AetCeen Coughlin and the *BN and
the Cler5 of Court thereof' Aetray a patent dishonesty on the *BN and its Cler5 of Court4s part)
CONCL+SION
Nevada case laC is clear) /he Court should issue the re3uested order in limine) +espectfully
suAmitted this "#th day of Bune, #%"3 !s! Bohn Gadlic, Dan ?ong, Chief Criminal Deputy City
<ttorney
D(C6<+</7$N $0 D<N7(6 ?$N@
") 7 am the self representign defendant in this matter)
#) (verything 7 assert in this and any of my filings in any of these matters is true to the Aest of
my 5noCledge and Aased upon my oCn first hand 5noCledge, and 7 authenticate as true and correct
copies thereof all attachments included as e1hiAits hereto)
4) ;ursuant to N+* .3)%4., 7 declare under penalty of perEury that the foregoing is true and
correct)D !s! Zach CoughlinD
/he /ruesdell case cited Ay the +C< is inapplicaAle for a variety of reasons) $ne, /ruesdell
spea5s only to attac5ing the DvalidityD of a /;$) Coughlin Aases his collateral attac5 on the void or
voidaAle nature of the orders in 3uestion, not the validity of such orders)
/here is a distinct difference, and the authority cited in the /ruesdell $pinion e1plicitly
recogniIes such a difference (Chere it cites to City of *eattle v 9ay ' and Aases such $pinion solely
on attac5s as to the DconstitutionaityD of the /;$ statute in 3uestion (cited to ChaveI' or attac5ing
the underying factua #asis for the Order or in situations, unli5e the present, Chere a party
actually had an opportunity to pursue a direct attack on the Order through, say N+* 33)#7%(#' (as
+C< ?ong claims, despite, in /0 C- 01/0 there #eing no reasona#e amount of time to do so
#efore the aeged /202/0 courier dei)ery of a fiing in N./3%4345, not to mention such date
#eing the /4th 6udicia, and fina day, to fie a N-CP 71 motion as to the /32/52/3 8O8COL in
N./3%4345)
(/ruesdell cites to: D*tate v) @rindling, 9 8aCaiOi 4%#, 3" ;)3d 9"., 9"9 (8aC)#%%"'
(concluding that the defendant coud not coateray attac" the underying factua #asis of a
temporary restraining order in a later criminal proceeding for violating the order'= ?ood v) Com),
"7& *)?)3d .%%, ."#P"3 (Gy)#%%.' (concluding that appellant could not collaterally attac5 the
validity of an emergency protective order in a later proceeding for violating that order and this
- 12-
1
2
preclusion did not violate appellant4s due process rights #ecause a statute ao!ed appeant to
directy chaenge the order'=
*tate v) *mall, ".% N)8) 4.7, &43 <)#d 93#, 93. (N)8)#%%4' (Q O/he general underlying
premise Lagainst collateral attac5sM is that a person suAEect to an inEunctive order, should be bound to
pursue any objection to the order through the constituted judicial process available for that
purpose)R Q (3uoting *tate v) @rondin, "3# N)8) "94, .3 <)#d 43. (N)8)"9&9'''=
City of *eattle v) 9ay, "7" ?ash)#d &47, #. ;)3d """, ""3P4 (?ash) #%""' (concluding
that the collateral Aar rule prohiAited a defendant from challenging the validity of permanent
domestic violence order in a later prosecution for violation of that order, unless the defendant could
show that the order was void')D
/he /ruesdell <dv $pinion (the ;etition for +ehearing!(n Banc +econsderation has yet to
even Ae disposed of and the <dv) $pinion did not e1ist as the time of the alleged violations in
3uestion' reads, in relevant part:
<s to collateral attac5 against Eudgments, see KK 73& to 7") 7) 7N @(N(+<6 C) 7ssues
+elating /o -alidity $f Budgment #) Burisdiction of Court +endering Budgment /opic *ummary
Correlation /aAle +eferences K #3) Court4s authority to render Eudgment ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest
?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 5". < court may not render a Eudgment Chich transcends the
limits of its authority)L0N"M < Eudgment may properly Ae rendered against a party only if the court
has authority to adEudicate the type of controversy involved in the action)L0N#M < Eudgment is void if
it is Aeyond the poCers granted to the court Ay the laC of its organiIation, even Chere the court has
Eurisdiction over the parties and the suAEect matter)L0N3M /hus, a Eudgment may Ae void if the court,
although having Eurisdiction over the parties and suAEect matter, entered a decree not Cithin the
poCers granted to it Ay laC)L0N4M C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: < Eudgment is void if the
court rendering it lac5ed suAEect matter Eurisdiction or Eurisdiction over the parties) 0ireman4s 0und
7ns) Co) v) ?or5ers4 Comp) <ppeals Bd), "&" Cal) <pp) 4th 7.#, "%4 Cal) +ptr) 3d 4" (3d Dist)
#%"%') L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M +oyal 7ndem) Co) v) 9ayor, etc), of City of *avannah, #%9
@a) 3&3, 73 *)()#d #%. ("9.#'= 8oCle v) /Cin *tates (1p), #37 N)C) 7, 7. *)()#d 73# ("9.3')
L0N#M DuAai ;etroleum Co) v) GaIi, "# *)?)3d 7" (/e1) #%%%' (citing +estatement *econd,
Budgments K ""') L0N3M ;eople v) ?ade, "" 7ll) #d ", "%7 7ll) Dec) 3, .% N)()#d 9.4 ("9&7'=
8ough v) 8ough, "9&9 $G ., 77# ;)#d 9#% ($5la) "9&9'= *hopper <dvertiser, 7nc) v) ?isconsin
Dept) of +evenue, ""7 ?is) #d ##3, 344 N)?)#d "". ("9&4') /he lac5 of statutory authority to ma5e
particular order or a Eudgment is a5in to lac5 of suAEect2matter Eurisdiction and is suAEect to collateral
attac5) Bennett (state v) /ravelers 7ns) Co), "4% -t) 339, 43& <)#d 3&% ("9&"' (overruled on other
grounds Ay, Bevins v) Ging, "47 -t) 4., ."3 <)#d 4" ("9&'') <s to suAEect2matter Eurisdiction, see K
#4) <s to Eurisdiction of the parties, see K #.) L0N4M :)*) v) 7ndoor Cultivation (3uipment from 8igh
/ech 7ndoor @arden *upply, .. 0)3d "3"", 3" 0ed) +) *erv) 3d &3# (7th Cir) "99.')
7) 7N @(N(+<6 C) 7ssues +elating /o -alidity $f Budgment ") 7n @eneral /opic *ummary
Correlation /aAle +eferences K "&) -iolation of procedural rules or statute ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest
?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 5#7 < Eudgment is irregular Chere its rendition is contrary to
the course and practice of the courts,L0N"M that is, Chere proper rules of practice have not Aeen
folloCed, or Chere some necessary act has Aeen omitted or has Aeen done in an improper manner)
L0N#M < court4s failure to folloC proper procedure results in an act in e1cess of its Eurisdiction such
that the Eudgment remains valid Aut voidaAle, and the parties may Ae precluded from setting it aside
Ay Caiver or estoppel)L0N3M +ules relating to service of process are mandatory, and the failure to
comply Cith such rules renders the Eudgment void, if a Eudgment is rendered against a party Cho Cas
- 13-
1
2
not served in accordance Cith those rules and Cho did not Caive service of citation or appear
voluntar2ily)L0N4M /he Eudgment is void Aecause the trial court is Cithout Eurisdiction and is suAEect
to direct or collateral attac5)L0N.M 0or e1ample, in Eurisdictions Chich prohiAit an interested person
from ma5ing personal service on a party, personal service Ay a party renders any Eudgment or order
arising from the proceeding void, despite the defendant4s actual notice)L0NM 8oCever, a claim of
insufficiency of process, unsupported Ay facts and documentation, is not enough to upset a Eudgment)
L0N7M < suAstantial defect in notice renders an original notice fatally defective, and any Eudgment
Aased on it is void)L0N&M $n the other hand, a mere irregularity has no such effect on the original
notice, and a Eudgment Aased on it is not void Aut may Ae voidaAle)L0N9M /he fact that a court acts in
violation of a statute does not mean that the resulting Eudgment is void)L0N"%M ?here a statute
authoriIes a court to do a particular thing, and the poCer of the court to act is suAEect to certain
limitations named, then a Eudgment of the court rendered contrary to the limitations named is not void
for Cant of Eurisdiction or suAEect to collateral attac5 Aut is voidaAle only)L0N""M 8oCever, Chere
Eurisdiction is statutory and the legislature re3uires the court to e1ercise its Eurisdiction in a certain
manner, an act of the court Aeyond these limits is in e1cess of its Eurisdiction, and Chere the court
acts in e1cess of its authority, its Eudgment is void and may Ae attac5ed Chenever and Cherever it is
asserted)L0N"#M C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: < default decree rendered upon a defective
suAstituted service of process is void for Cant of Eurisdiction) Beane v) Dailey, 7%" *)()#d &4& (?)
-a) #%"%') L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M ;ruitt v) /aylor, #47 N)C) 3&%, "%% *)()#d &4" ("9.7')
L0N#M *ache v) @illette (*tate +eport /itle: *ache v) ?allace', "%" 9inn) "9, ""# N)?) 3& ("9%7')
L0N3M Neumann v) 9elgar, "#" Cal) <pp) 4th ".#, " Cal) +ptr) 3d 7.4 ("st Dist) #%%4') <s to
voidaAle Eudgments, see K #&) <s to estoppel to set up the invalidity of a Eudgment, see K 3") L0N4M
?illiams v) Gilgore, "& *o) #d ." (9iss) "99#'= *5alec5i v) *mall, &3# *)?)#d 9.4 (9o) Ct) <pp)
*)D) "99#'= *traCder v) /homas, &4 *)?)#d ." (/e1) <pp) Corpus Christi "99#'= 8armon /ruc5
6ines, 7nc) v) *teele, &3 *)?)#d ## (/e1) <pp) /e1ar5ana "99#', Crit dismissed, ($ct) #&, "99#'=
6indgren v) 6indgren, .& ?ash) <pp) .&&, 794 ;)#d .# (Div) " "99%') Directory rules of procedure
are limited to Chat is re3uired to Ae done, and simply regulate the orderly manner in Chich the court
e1ercises its Eurisdiction, Chereas mandatory rules prescriAe, in addition to specific re3uired actions,
the result that Cill folloC if those re3uirements are not met, and failure to comply Cith a mandatory
rule renders a Eudgment void) <utry v) <utry, &3% *)?)#d "4% (/e1) <pp) 8ouston "4th Dist) "99#')
<s to void Eudgments, see K #9) L0N.M 6aCson v) (dmondson, 3%# <r5) 4, 7& *)?)#d &#3 ("99%'=
6ongvieC 0iAre Co) v) *to5es, .# ?ash) <pp) #4", 7.& ;)#d "%% (Div) # "9&&'= Crotteau v) 7rvine,
. ;)#d "" (?yo) "9&3') 7f service of the complaint Cas improper, the court did not have
Eurisdiction over the persons of the defendants, and its Eudgment should have Aeen stric5en as void)
Continental Ban5 v) +app, 33 ;a) *uper) "%, 4&. <)#d 4&% ("9&4') L0NM CaldCell v) Coppola, #"9
Cal) <pp) 3d &.9, #& Cal) +ptr) 4.3 (4th Dist) "99%') L0N7M 0arm Credit Ban5 of *t) ;aul v)
*tedman, 449 N)?)#d .# (N)D) "9&9') L0N&M City of $elCein v) Dvors5y, 3&% N)?)#d 739 (7oCa
Ct) <pp) "9&.') L0N9M City of $elCein v) Dvors5y, 3&% N)?)#d 739 (7oCa Ct) <pp) "9&.') ?here
service of all pleadings and papers suAse3uent to the original complaint must Ae made on the attorney
unless service on the party is ordered Ay the court, service of a motion on a party rather than on a
party4s attorney does not render a resulting Eudgment void= the Eudgment is suAEect to possiAle
reversal Aased on the particular circumstances of the individual case) 9urat v) 0!- *heli5of *trait,
793 ;)#d 9 (<las5a "99%') L0N"%M 9ontoya v) 8ousing <uthority of ;ortland, "9# $r) <pp) 4%&, &
;)3d &% (#%%4') L0N""M /hac5er v) 8ale, "4 9d) <pp) #%3, &% <)#d 7." (#%%#') L0N"#M BroCn v)
BroCn, ". *)()#d 39 (N)C) Ct) <pp) #%%.', revieC denied, #%%. ?6 3%#.%9 (N)C) #%%.')
- 14-
1
2
K #") (ffect of status of record ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest,
Budgment 5#4 7n determining the validity of a Eudgment, resort may Ae had to the entire record,L0N"M
including the pleadings filed in the action)L0N#M < decision is facially void if an inspection of its
record proper shoCs that one or more of the re3uisite Eurisdictional elementsL0N3M appears to have
Aeen aAsent)L0N4M 8oCever, an invalid Eudgment is not void in a legal sense unless its invalidity
appears on the face of the record)L0N.M 7f evidence aliunde is re3uired for impeachment, the
Eudgment is not void Aut voidaAle)L0NM $n the other hand, the general principle is that Chere a court
has Eurisdiction over the person and the suAEect matter and the Eudgment rendered is not in e1cess of
the Eurisdiction or poCer of the court, no error or irregularity can ma5e the Eudgment void= it prevails
even if there is a fundamental error of laC appearing upon the face of the record)L0N7M L0N"M
9ueller v) Ban5s, 33# *)?)#d 7&3 (/e1) Civ) <pp) *an <ntonio "9%') <s to the presumption of
Eurisdiction, validity, and regularity as affected Ay the status of the record, see KK 37 to 4%) L0N#M
Bac5son v) *laughter, "&. *)?)#d 7.9 (/e1) Civ) <pp) /e1ar5ana "944', Crit refused C)o)m) L0N3M K
##) L0N4M 9essenger v) 9essenger, "99# $G #7, &#7 ;)#d &. ($5la) "99#') L0N.M 8unter v)
*uperior Court of +iverside County, 3 Cal) <pp) #d "%%, 97 ;)#d 49# (4th Dist) "939'= 8oCard v)
Boyce, #.4 N)C) #.., ""& *)()#d &97 ("9"'= *tate e1 rel) Com4rs of 6and $ffice v) Geller, "9.3 $G
37", #4 ;)#d 74# ($5la) "9.3') L0NM *haver v) *haver, #4& N)C) ""3, "%# *)()#d 79" ("9.&') <s to
voidaAle Eudgments, see K #&) <s to void Eudgments, see K #9) L0N7M 9ahaffa v) 9ahaffa, #3% 7oCa
79, #9& N)?) 9" ("94"'= /odd v) /odd, "97 9iss) &"9, #% *o) #d &#7 ("94.'= *tate v) District Court
of (ighth Budicial Dist) in and for Natrona County, 33 ?yo) #&", #3& ;) .4. ("9#.') <s to Eurisdiction
of the court rendering Eudgment, generally, see KK ## to #7)
/ruesdell itself alloCs for attac5ing the validity of a /;$ in a collateral manner Chere one
had legitimate opportunity to challenge that protection order4s validity directly Aefore the court from
Chich it issued) /o Ae clear, Coughlin is in no Cay indicating that even should the alleged acts
involved in those matters Ae proven, that they Could Ae tantamount to a violation of either order, on
that Coughlin should not Ae forced to even mount such a defense given the permissiAility of the
collateral attac5 Coughlin mounted in his .!"!"3, .!#!"3, .!9!"3, and .!"3!"3 9otions in 39"3 and
39"4')
<s such, especially in +9C "3 C+ 39"3 (though arguaAly in "3 C+ 39"4 as Cell)))Coughlin
should Ae permitted to so mount a collateral attac5 upon such /;$ as to its validity, Aut even should
/ruesdell Ae applied there, such Could only preclude attac5ing the DvalidityD of the order, not, per the
very City of *eattle v 9ay case relied upon in /ruesdell, prevent Coughlin from ma5ing a collateral
attac5 Aased upon the void or voidaAle nature of such orders)
-777) Conclusiveness= 9erger, +es Budicata, and Collateral <ttac5 <) Conclusiveness, 7n @eneral
/opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K 447) 7nvalid or irregular Eudgments ?est4s Gey
NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 5%, %). 7t is a fundamental principle of the
laC of former adEudication that only valid and final Eudgments are afforded preclusive effect) $ne of
the prere3uisites for a valid Eudgment is that the rendering court have Eurisdiction of the suAEect
matter of the action,L0N"M and the parties to the action,L0N#M and a party is not Aound in a suAse3uent
action Ay a Eudgment entered against it in a previous action if the party Cas never served and made no
appearance in the previous action)L0N3M 7n order that a Eudgment may operate as a conclusive
determination of a cause of action, or of facts litigated therein, it is generally necessary that it should
have Aeen rendered Ay a court of competent Eurisdiction of the parties and of the suAEect matter,L0N4M
although it is possiAle that a court Cithout Eurisdiction may render a Ainding Eudgment on the merits if
- 15-
1
2
the Eudgment is alloCed to Aecome final, unless the lac5 of Eurisdiction is so gross that the Eudgment
is deemed void)L0N.M < reaffirmation agreement unaccompanied Ay a court order is not a final
Eudgment on the merits and cannot Ae given preclusive effect)L0NM L0N"M 7n re /aylor, &&4 0)#d 47&
(9th Cir) "9&9'= BacoAs v) DuEmovic, 7.# 0) *upp) "." (D) Colo) "99%', Eudgment aff4d, 94% 0)#d
"39# ("%th Cir) "99"') L0N#M Bensen v) *chCartI, 9% N)?)#d 7" (N)D) "9.&') L0N3M @eorgia v)
*outh Carolina, 497 :)*) 37, ""% *) Ct) #9%3, """ 6) (d) #d 3%9, .& :)*)6)?) 494, 7% :)*)6)?)
3%39, "99% ?6 &4%# ("99%') L0N4M K ."3) L0N.M Disher v) 7nformation +esources, 7nc), &73 0)#d
"3 (7th Cir) "9&9') L0NM +ein v) ;rovidian 0inancial Corp), #7% 0)3d &9. (9th Cir) #%%"') <9B:+
B:D@9(N/* K 447
7) 7N @(N(+<6 C) 7ssues +elating /o -alidity $f Budgment #) Burisdiction of Court +endering
Budgment /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K ##) @enerally ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest
?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 5"., ", #4 <)6)+) 6iArary ?ho has Aurden of proof in
proceeding under +ule %(A'(4' of 0ederal +ules of Civil ;rocedure to have default Eudgment set
aside on ground that it is void for lac5 of Eurisdiction, "%# <)6)+) 0ed) &"" 6ac5 of Eurisdiction, or
Eurisdictional error, as rendering federal district court Eudgment DvoidD for purposes of relief under
+ule %(A'(4' of 0ederal +ules of Civil ;rocedure, .9 <)6)+) 0ed) &3" 0orms <nsCerSDefenseS
-oid EudgmentS(1cess of Eurisdiction of court, <m) Bur) ;leading and ;ractice 0orms, Budgments K
4&% <nsCerSDefenseSBudgment oAtained Ay e1trinsic fraud, <m) Bur) ;leading and ;ractice 0orms,
Budgments K 4&" <nsCerSDefenseSBudgment oAtained Ay e1trinsic fraudS+epresentation that
action Could Ae dismissed, <m) Bur) ;leading and ;ractice 0orms, Budgments K 4&# ?hether the
court is one of general or limited Eurisdiction, it is essential to the proper rendition of a Eudgment that
it Ae given Ay a court of competent Eurisdiction)L0N"M Burisdiction refers Aoth to the poCer of a court
to render a valid final Eudgment, and to the propriety of granting the relief sought, and it is only Chen
a court lac5s fundamental Eurisdiction to render Eudgment that there is an aAsence of authority in the
court so as to render its Eudgment a nullity)L0N#M 7n order for a Eudgment to Ae valid and enforceaAle,
the court Chich renders it must have Eurisdiction of the parties, as Cell as Eurisdiction of the suAEect
matter)L0N3M < Eudgment rendered Cithout Eurisdiction may Ae attac5ed and vacated at any time,
either directly or collaterally)L0N4M < total lac5 of Eurisdiction must Ae distinguished from an error in
the e1ercise of Eurisdiction, and an error in interpreting a statutory grant of Eurisdiction is not
e3uivalent to acting Cith a total lac5 of Eurisdiction and does not render the Eudgment a complete
nullity)L0N.M /hus, a Eudgment that incorrectly interprets a rule of laC does not divest the court of
Eurisdiction over the suAEect matter or over the parties)L0NM ?hen a suit is dismissed for lac5 of
Eurisdiction, rulings on the merits rendered prior to the dismissal are nullities, void aA initio)L0N7M
C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: 0or a court to ac3uire Eurisdiction there must Ae a proper
service of summons or an entry of appearance, and a Eudgment rendered Cithout proper service or
entry of appearance is a nullity and void) *tate e1 rel) (state of 9iles v) -illage of ;i5eton, "#" $hio
*t) 3d #3", #%%92$hio27&, 9%3 N)()#d 3"" (#%%9') L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M C)8)<)
-enture v) @)C) ?allace Consulting (ngineers, 7nc), "% Nev) 3&", 794 ;)#d 7%7 ("99%'= *ecurity Nat)
Ban5 of *apulpa v) 8ufford, "9&7 $G C7- <;; 9#, 7.4 ;)#d ." (Ct) <pp) "9&7'= @arritty v) -irginia
Dept) of *ocial *ervices e1 rel) *inift, "" -a) <pp) 39, 39 *)()#d ".% ("99%') <s to rendition of
Eudgments, see KK .. to #) L0N#M Dorsey v) *tate, #9. 9d) #"7, 4.4 <)#d 3.3 ("9&3') L0N3M @iese
v) @iese, #%%4 ND .&, 7 N)?)#d 794 (N)D) #%%4') L0N4M 7n re 9arriage of -erdung, "# 7ll) #d
.4#, "#9 7ll) Dec) .3, .3. N)()#d &"& ("9&9'= *tate Ban5 of 6a5e Zurich v) /hill, ""3 7ll) #d #94, "%%
7ll) Dec) 794, 497 N)()#d "". ("9&'= 9atter of GemnitI4 (state, 9. N)9) ."3, #3 ;)#d "%#7 (Ct)
<pp) "9&"') < Eudgment is void and, therefore, suAEect to relief under 0ed) +) Civ) ;) %(A'(4' only if
- 16-
1
2
the court lac5ed Eurisdiction or if the court4s action amounted to a plain usurpation of poCer
constituting a violation of due process) 8oult v) 8oult, .7 0)3d ", 4" 0ed) +) (vid) *erv) 7&3, 3# 0ed)
+) *erv) 3d #&" ("st Cir) "99.') L0N.M Bones v) @iles, 74" 0)#d #4. (9th Cir) "9&4'= BoCie v) <rder,
44" 9ich) #3, 49% N)?)#d .& ("99#'= 8ermens v) -eal, ""7 $r) <pp) 3", &43 ;)#d "%"3 ("99#') <s
to the fact that erroneous Eudgments that are merely voidaAle may not Ae collaterally attac5ed, see K
#&) <s to void Eudgments, see K #9) L0NM @ordon v) @ordon, ""& 7daho &%4, &%% ;)#d "%"& ("99%'=
0irst Nat) Ban5 of CrosAy v) BEorgen, 3&9 N)?)#d 7&9 (N)D) "9&') 7f the court had suAEect2matter
Eurisdiction, then the Eudgment, although erroneous, is merely voidaAle) Callahan v) (mployment
Div), 97 $r) <pp) #34, 77 ;)#d #" ("9&9') L0N7M 8arris v) 7llinois2California (1p), 7nc), &7 0)#d
"3", "" 0ed) +) (vid) *erv) "#%7, 34 0ed) +) *erv) #d "47 ("%th Cir) "9&#'= BoCie v) <rder, 44"
9ich) #3, 49% N)?)#d .& ("99#'= *chumacher v) *chumacher, "%9 N)C) <pp) 3%9, 4# *)()#d 47
("993'= @arritty v) -irginia Dept) of *ocial *ervices e1 rel) *inift, "" -a) <pp) 39, 39 *)()#d ".%
("99%') T #%"# /homson +euters) 33234B T #%"# /homson +euters!+7<) No Claim to $rig) :)*)
@ovt) ?or5s) <ll rights reserved) <9B:+ B:D@9(N/* K ## (ND $0 D$C:9(N/ <merican
Burisprudence, *econd (dition DataAase updated <ugust #%"# Budgments Christina (:ranIa' Crimi,
B)D)= 6aura 8unter DietI, B)D)= /racy 0arrell, B)D)= <lan B) BacoAs, B)D)= +achel Gane, B)D)= ?illiam
6indsley, B)D)= Beff B) *hampo, B)D)= (ric *urette, B)D)= and *uIanne 6) Bailey, B)D), /homas B)
CIelusta, B)D), and Bohn +) Gennel, B)D) of the National 6egal +esearch @roup, 7nc) 7) 7N @(N(+<6
C) 7ssues +elating /o -alidity $f Budgment #) Burisdiction of Court +endering Budgment /opic
*ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K #3) Court4s authority to render Eudgment ?est4s Gey
NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 5". < court may not render a Eudgment Chich
transcends the limits of its authority)L0N"M < Eudgment may properly Ae rendered against a party only
if the court has authority to adEudicate the type of controversy involved in the action)L0N#M <
Eudgment is void if it is Aeyond the poCers granted to the court Ay the laC of its organiIation, even
Chere the court has Eurisdiction over the parties and the suAEect matter)L0N3M /hus, a Eudgment may
Ae void if the court, although having Eurisdiction over the parties and suAEect matter, entered a decree
not Cithin the poCers granted to it Ay laC)L0N4M C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: < Eudgment
is void if the court rendering it lac5ed suAEect matter Eurisdiction or Eurisdiction over the parties)
0ireman4s 0und 7ns) Co) v) ?or5ers4 Comp) <ppeals Bd), "&" Cal) <pp) 4th 7.#, "%4 Cal) +ptr) 3d
4" (3d Dist) #%"%') L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M +oyal 7ndem) Co) v) 9ayor, etc), of City of
*avannah, #%9 @a) 3&3, 73 *)()#d #%. ("9.#'= 8oCle v) /Cin *tates (1p), #37 N)C) 7, 7. *)()#d
73# ("9.3') L0N#M DuAai ;etroleum Co) v) GaIi, "# *)?)3d 7" (/e1) #%%%' (citing +estatement
*econd, Budgments K ""') L0N3M ;eople v) ?ade, "" 7ll) #d ", "%7 7ll) Dec) 3, .% N)()#d 9.4
("9&7'= 8ough v) 8ough, "9&9 $G ., 77# ;)#d 9#% ($5la) "9&9'= *hopper <dvertiser, 7nc) v)
?isconsin Dept) of +evenue, ""7 ?is) #d ##3, 344 N)?)#d "". ("9&4') /he lac5 of statutory
authority to ma5e particular order or a Eudgment is a5in to lac5 of suAEect2matter Eurisdiction and is
suAEect to collateral attac5) Bennett (state v) /ravelers 7ns) Co), "4% -t) 339, 43& <)#d 3&% ("9&"'
(overruled on other grounds Ay, Bevins v) Ging, "47 -t) 4., ."3 <)#d 4" ("9&'') <s to suAEect2
matter Eurisdiction, see K #4) <s to Eurisdiction of the parties, see K #.) L0N4M :)*) v) 7ndoor
Cultivation (3uipment from 8igh /ech 7ndoor @arden *upply, .. 0)3d "3"", 3" 0ed) +) *erv) 3d &3#
(7th Cir) "99.') T #%"# /homson +euters) 33234B T #%"# /homson +euters!+7<) No Claim to $rig)
:)*) @ovt) ?or5s) <ll rights reserved) <9B:+ B:D@9(N/* K #3 (ND $0 D$C:9(N/
<merican Burisprudence, *econd (dition DataAase updated <ugust #%"# Budgments Christina
(:ranIa' Crimi, B)D)= 6aura 8unter DietI, B)D)= /racy 0arrell, B)D)= <lan B) BacoAs, B)D)= +achel Gane,
B)D)= ?illiam 6indsley, B)D)= Beff B) *hampo, B)D)= (ric *urette, B)D)= and *uIanne 6) Bailey, B)D),
/homas B) CIelusta, B)D), and Bohn +) Gennel, B)D) of the National 6egal +esearch @roup, 7nc) 7) 7N
- 17-
1
2
@(N(+<6 C) 7ssues +elating /o -alidity $f Budgment #) Burisdiction of Court +endering Budgment
/opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K #4) *uAEect2matter Eurisdiction ?est4s Gey NumAer
Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 5" < Eudgment rendered Ay a court Chich has no
Eurisdiction over the suAEect matter of the action or proceeding is void)L0N"M *uch a Eudgment may Ae
attac5ed in any direct or collateral proceeding Chere a person see5s to assert a right arising from the
Eudgment, and at any time Chen the Eudgment is to Ae enforced or its validity is 3uestioned)L0N#M
(ither party, even the party that invo5ed the Eurisdiction of the court, can attac5 the Eurisdiction at any
time after Eudgment is rendered)L0N3M L0N"M 7n re ?ater +ights of ColumAine <ss4n, 993 ;)#d 4&3
(Colo) #%%%'= Bolling v) D4<mato, #.9 -a) #99, .# *)()#d #.7 (#%%%'= *tate e1 rel) +)@) v) ?)9)B),
".9 ?is) #d #, 4. N)?)#d ##" (Ct) <pp) "99%') < Eudgment is void Chen the district court lac5ed
personal or suAEect2matter Eurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent Cith due process) Crist v)
8unan ;alace, 7nc), #77 Gan) 7%, &9 ;)3d .73 (#%%4') <s to personal Eurisdiction over the parties, see
K #.) <s to void Eudgments, see K #9) L0N#M Blume v) :)*) <cting /hrough 0armers 8ome <dmin),
4% B)+) .." (D)*)D) "9&4'= (ditorial ;hotocolor <rchives, 7nc) v) @ranger Collection, " N)>)#d ."7,
474 N)>)*)#d 94, 43 N)()#d 3. ("9&4'= -an Der *tappen v) -an Der *tappen, &". ;)#d "33.
(:tah Ct) <pp) "99"') /he Aasis for alloCing a challenge to suAEect2matter Eurisdiction to Ae raised for
the first time on appeal is to Ae found in the doctrine that the Eudgments of a court acting outside of
the limits of the constitutional and statutory provisions defining its suAEectmatter Eurisdiction are
void) ;aine, ?eAAer, Bac5son N Curtis, 7nc) v) <dams, 7"& ;)#d .%& (Colo) "9&') L0N3M Capehart2
Creager (nterprises, 7nc) v) $48ara and Gendall
<viation, 7nc), .43 0) *upp) #.9 (?)D) <r5) "9&#') T #%"# /homson +euters) 33234B T #%"#
/homson +euters!+7<) No Claim to $rig) :)*) @ovt) ?or5s) <ll rights reserved) <9B:+
B:D@9(N/* K #4 (ND $0 D$C:9(N/ <merican Burisprudence, *econd (dition DataAase
updated <ugust #%"# Budgments Christina (:ranIa' Crimi, B)D)= 6aura 8unter DietI, B)D)= /racy
0arrell, B)D)= <lan B) BacoAs, B)D)= +achel Gane, B)D)= ?illiam 6indsley, B)D)= Beff B) *hampo, B)D)=
(ric *urette, B)D)= and *uIanne 6) Bailey, B)D), /homas B) CIelusta, B)D), and Bohn +) Gennel, B)D) of
the National 6egal +esearch @roup, 7nc) 7) 7N @(N(+<6 C) 7ssues +elating /o -alidity $f
Budgment #) Burisdiction of Court +endering Budgment /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences
K #.) Burisdiction of the parties ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 5"
0orms BudgmentS+ecitalsSBurisdictional factsS7n personam actionSDefault Ay defendant, <m)
Bur) ;leading and ;ractice 0orms, Budgments K & Budgment Ay defaultS<fter service Ay puAlication,
<m) Bur) ;leading and ;ractice 0orms, Budgments K #%" <nsCerSDefenseS7nvalid EudgmentS
0ailure to oAtain Eurisdiction over nonresident defendant, <m) Bur) ;leading and ;ractice 0orms,
Budgments KK 47&, 479 /o enter a valid Eudgment, a court must not only have Eurisdiction of the
suAEect matter, Aut also of the persons of the parties to give validity to its final Eudgment)L0N"M /hus,
only a court having Eurisdiction over the person of the defendant may enter a valid Eudgment
imposing a personal oAligation or duty in favor of the plaintiff)L0N#M 7n the aAsence of Eurisdiction
over the person of the defendant, any Eudgment or order the court might enter against the defendant is
void)L0N3M ;ersonal Eurisdiction is invo5ed Ay the party4s appearance Aefore the court, or Ay the
laCful service of process upon the party)L0N4M /he e1istence of personal Eurisdiction depends upon
the presence of reasonaAle notice to the defendant that an action has Aeen Arought, and a sufficient
connection AetCeen the defendant and the forum state as to ma5e it fair to re3uire the defendant to
defend in that forum)L0N.M C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: < default Eudgment entered
Cithout personal Eurisdiction is void) 9orris v) ;alouse +iver and Coulee City +)+), 7nc), "49 ?ash)
<pp) 3, #%3 ;)3d "%9 (Div) 3 #%%9') L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M 6e1ington 7ns) Co) v)
Buc5ley, #%%. ?6 #"4"&%4 (9iss) Ct) <pp) #%%.') <s to suAEect2matter Eurisdiction, see K #4) L0N#M
- 18-
1
2
0reedom 0orge Corp) v) Bersey 0orging ?or5s, 7nc), .49 0) *upp) 99 (9)D) ;a) "9&#'= 7n re 9arriage
of NosAisch, . Cal) <pp) 4th #9, Cal) +ptr) #d &"7 (.th Dist) "99#'= <nsalve v) /uc5er, "7 *o) #d
"" (6a) Ct) <pp) 4th Cir) "993') D7n personam EurisdictionD is the poCer to deal Cith the person of
the defendant and to render a Ainding Eudgment against the defendant) Conoco, 7nc) v) <grico
Chemical Co), #%%4 $G &3, "". ;)3d &#9 ($5la) #%%4', as corrected, (Nov) "7, #%%4') L0N3M (1 parte
C)6)C), &97 *o) #d #34 (<la) #%%4'= ?atervieC +esolution Corp) v) <llen, #74 Gan) "%", .& ;)3d
"#&4 (#%%#') 0or a Eudgment to Ae void, the alleged infirmity must render the court Cithout
Eurisdiction to enter the Eudgment or the record must estaAlish that the Eudgment Cas entered in a
manner that Cas inconsistent Cith due process) B)6)9) v) +)6)C), Br), "3# *)?)3d #79 (9o) Ct) <pp)
?)D) #%%4') <ny money Eudgment rendered Cithout personal Eurisdiction over the defendant is void)
@lumina Ban5 d)d) v) D)C) Diamond Corp), #.9 -a) 3"#, .#7 *)()#d 77. (#%%%') 7f the record does
not reflect that personal service has Aeen made on the defendant, the court lac5s in personam
Eurisdiction over the defendant and any default Eudgment rendered thereon is void and suAEect to
vacation) ?ashington 9ut) Ban5 0< v) 0arhat (nterprises, 7nc), #%%3 $G C7- <;; 7&, 77 ;)3d ""%3
(Div) " #%%3') <s to void Eudgments, see K #9) L0N4M Bird v) Gornman, ".# *)?)3d ".4 (/e1) <pp)
Dallas #%%4', reh4g overruled, (Ban) "#, #%%.' and revieC denied, (Bune "%, #%%.') ?ithout personal
service, in personam Eurisdiction does not attach) *outheastern *ec) 7ns) Co) v) 6oCe, #4# @a) <pp)
.3., .3% *)()#d #3" (#%%%') L0N.M *terling 7ndus) Corp) v) /elephone, 7nc), 4&4 0) *upp) "#94 (?)D)
9ich) "9&%') <s to the re3uirement of notice, see K ".)
D7) 7N @(N(+<6 C) 7ssues +elating /o -alidity $f Budgment 3) (ffect of 7nvalidity /opic
*ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K #&) -oidaAle Eudgments= erroneous Eudgments ?est4s Gey
NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 5., "., " < voidaAle Eudgment is a Eudgment
entered erroneously Ay a court having Eurisdiction)L0N"M /he term voidaAle denotes an action in
Chich a Eudgment nonetheless operates to accomplish the results sought to Ae accomplished until the
flaC is Eudicially ascertained and declared)L0N#M /hus, a Eudgment Chich is voidaAle is capaAle of
confirmation or ratification,L0N3M and until superseded, reversed, or vacated, it is Ainding and
enforceaAle)L0N4M (rroneous Eudgments Chich have Aeen issued Ay a court Cith Eurisdiction are
suAEect to reversal on timely direct appeal)L0N.M /he fact that an action Ay a court is contrary to a
statute, constitutional provision, or rule of civil or appellate procedure ma5es it voidaAle or
erroneous, rather than void, and thus suAEect to ordinary appellate or other direct procedures to
correct it)L0NM 8oCever, Chile an error of laC in the proceedings may furnish grounds for an
appeal, it does not invalidate the Eudgment)L0N7M C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: < court4s
action contrary to a statute or statutory e3uivalent means the action is erroneous or voidaAle, not that
it is void) 7n re $cegueda, 3%4 *)?)3d .7 (/e1) <pp) (l ;aso #%"%', petition for revieC filed, (0eA)
#4, #%"%') L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M BusIcIy5 v) 0lores, 334 7ll) <pp) 3d "##, #7 7ll) Dec)
.", 777 N)()#d 4.4 ("st Dist) #%%#', appeal denied, #%# 7ll) #d 7#, #7# 7ll) Dec) 3.&, 7&7 N)()#d
"73 (#%%3') (rrors other than lac5 of Eurisdiction render the Eudgment merely voidaAle rather than
void) 7n re *)<);), "9 *)?)3d &. (/e1) <pp) ?aco #%%.') <s to void Eudgments, see K #9) L0N#M
6ucas v) (state of *tavos, %9 N)()#d """4 (7nd) Ct) <pp) "st Dist) "993') < voidaAle Eudgment is not
a nullity Aut rather has all the ordinary attriAutes and conse3uences of a valid Eudgment) $pat v)
6ude5ing, N)?)#d .97 (7oCa #%%3') L0N3M 6ucas v) (state of *tavos, %9 N)()#d """4 (7nd) Ct)
<pp) "st Dist) "993') L0N4M 0arms v) CarlsAad +iverside /errace <partments, 7nc), "%# N)9) .%, 9%
;)#d "%44 (Ct) <pp) "9&4'= Com) v) 9ac5ley, 3&% ;a) 7%, ""% <)#d "7# ("9..') L0N.M 9ishler v)
County of (l5hart, .44 N)()#d "49 (7nd) "9&9') L0NM 7n re C)<)*), "#& *)?)3d &" (/e1) <pp)
Dallas #%%3', reh4g overruled, (Buly "4, #%%3') L0N7M 9atter of (state of 8ansen, 4.& N)?)#d #4
(N)D) "99%') < Eudgment incorrectly interpreting a rule of laC does not divest the court of Eurisdiction
- 19-
1
2
over the suAEect matter of the proceeding, and Chere the court has Eurisdiction over the class of case
involved, the Eudgment is not void on the ground that the right involved in the suit did not emArace
the relief granted) 9atter of (state of 9c6aughlin, 7.4 ;)#d 79 (:tah Ct) <pp) "9&&') T #%"#
/homson +euters) 33234B T #%"# /homson +euters!+7<) No Claim to $rig) :)*) @ovt) ?or5s) <ll
rights reserved) <9B:+ B:D@9(N/* K #& (ND $0 D$C:9(N/ <merican Burisprudence,
*econd (dition DataAase updated <ugust #%"# Budgments Christina (:ranIa' Crimi, B)D)= 6aura
8unter DietI, B)D)= /racy 0arrell, B)D)= <lan B) BacoAs, B)D)= +achel Gane, B)D)= ?illiam 6indsley,
B)D)= Beff B) *hampo, B)D)= (ric *urette, B)D)= and *uIanne 6) Bailey, B)D), /homas B) CIelusta, B)D),
and Bohn +) Gennel, B)D) of the National 6egal +esearch @roup, 7nc) 7) 7N @(N(+<6 C) 7ssues
+elating /o -alidity $f Budgment 3) (ffect of 7nvalidity /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle
+eferences K #9) -oid Eudgments ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment
5., "., " < Eudgment is void Chere it appears that the trial court did not have suAEect2matter
Eurisdiction, Eurisdiction over the parties, capacity to act as a court, or Eurisdiction to render the
particular Eudgment at issue)L0N"M /hus, a Eudgment entered Cithout Eurisdiction is void)L0N#M <
Eudgment can Ae void not only for lac5 of Eurisdiction, Aut also Chere the court acts in a manner
contrary to due process)L0N3M < Eudgment issued Ay a trial court Cithout Eurisdiction is a nullity)
L0N4M ?ithout Eurisdiction, there is no authority to give Eudgment and a Eudgment so entered is
Cithout force or effect)L0N.M 9oreover, all proceedings founded on the void Eudgment are
themselves regarded as invalid)L0NM < Eudgment is not void simply Aecause it is erroneous)L0N7M <
void Eudgment must Ae distinguished from one Chich is merely erroneous,L0N&M as Chere there is an
error in the e1ercise of Eurisdiction)L0N9M < Eudgment Aased on an erroneous order determining
Eurisdiction is not void, Aut rather voidaAle)L0N"%M 7t is not necessary to ta5e any steps to have a void
Eudgment reversed or vacated)L0N""M *uch a Eudgment is open to attac5 or impeachment in any
proceeding,L0N"#M directL0N"3M or collateral,L0N"4M and at any time)L0N".M :nder the 0ederal
+ules of Civil ;rocedure, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
Eudgment, order or proceeding, on motion and upon such terms as are Eust Chere the Eudgment is
void)L0N"M C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: < person Cho Cas never served Cith the
summons and complaint, and is ignorant of the proceedings, resulting in a Eudgment that is void aA
initio for lac5 of personal Eurisdiction, is not a DEudgment deAtorD under the (nforcement of
Budgments 6aC ((B6' Aecause there is no enforceaAle Eudgment) ?est4s <nn)Cal)C)C);) K 7%")&%)
6ang v) +oche, #%" Cal) <pp) 4th #.4, "33 Cal) +ptr) 3d 7. (#d Dist) #%""') 6ac5 of venue does not
deprive a court of Eurisdiction to hear a case, and Eudgments in such cases are considered voidaAle
rather than void) BaIe v) Com), #%%& ?6 .%47#4 (Gy) #%%&') < Eudgment is void only Chen it is
clear that the court rendering the Eudgment had no Eurisdiction over the parties or suAEect matter, no
Eurisdiction to render Eudgment, or no capacity to act as a court) 7n re <)B)0), 3"3 *)?)3d 47. (/e1)
<pp) Dallas #%"%') < Eudgment is void only Chen it is apparent that the court rendering Eudgment had
no Eurisdiction of the parties, no Eurisdiction of the suAEect matter, no Eurisdiction to enter the
Eudgment, or no capacity to act as a court) 7n re $cegueda, 3%4 *)?)3d .7 (/e1) <pp) (l ;aso #%"%',
petition for revieC filed, (0eA) #4, #%"%') L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M ;eople v) +odrigueI, 3..
7ll) <pp) 3d #9%, #9" 7ll) Dec) #"4, &#3 N)()#d ##4 (#d Dist) #%%.'= Bird v) Gornman, ".# *)?)3d
".4 (/e1) <pp) Dallas #%%4', reh4g overruled, (Ban) "#, #%%.' and revieC denied, (Bune "%, #%%.') /he
circumstances ma5ing a Eudgment void are rare) 7n re C)<)*), "#& *)?)3d &" (/e1) <pp) Dallas
#%%3', reh4g overruled, (Buly "4, #%%3') -oid Eudgments may Ae attac5ed at any time) Burns v)
BaldCin, "3& 7daho 4&%, . ;)3d .%# (#%%3' (applying California laC') <s to suAEect2matter
Eurisdiction, see K #4) <s to personal Eurisdiction of the parties, see K #.) L0N#M <ndreC 6) ;ar5s, 7nc)
v) *un/rust Ban5, #4& @a) <pp) &4, .4. *)()#d 3" (#%%"'= Burns v) BaldCin, "3& 7daho 4&%, .
- 20-
1
2
;)3d .%# (#%%3' (applying California laC'= *eitI v) *eitI, "%7 *)?)3d 47& (9o) Ct) <pp) *)D) #%%3')
<n order entered Ay a court Cithout proper Eurisdiction is void and can Ae vacated) ?ilson v) Goppy,
#%%# ND "79, .3 N)?)#d &, #%%# ?6 3"4.7.9 (N)D) #%%#')) < Eudgment is void Chen the court
had no Eurisdiction to issue it= other defects merely render the Eudgment voidaAle) ;eacoc5 v) ?ave
/ec ;ools, 7nc), "%7 *)?)3d 3" (/e1) <pp) ?aco #%%3', reh4g overruled, (<pr) 3%, #%%3') <s to
voidaAle Eudgments, see K #&) L0N3M ;lant (3uip), 7nc) v) NationCide Control *erv), 7nc), ".. $hio
<pp) 3d 4, #%%32$hio2.39., 79& N)()#d "#%#, #%%3 ?6 ##3"&47 ("st Dist) 8amilton County
#%%3') L0N4M (1 parte ;unturo, #%%# ?6 "93&# (<la) #%%#'= Geiser v) Zoning Com4n of /oCn of
+edding, # Conn) <pp) %%, 77" <)#d 9.9 (#%%"', certification granted, cause remanded on other
grounds, #.9 Conn) 9#", 79" <)#d .& (#%%#') < void Eudgment is one that from its inception is a
complete nullity and Cithout legal effect) 8olstein v) City of Chicago, &%3 0) *upp) #%. (N)D) 7ll)
"99#', order aff4d, #9 0)3d ""4. (7th Cir) "994') L0N.M Drafto Corp) v) National 0uel @as DistriAution
Corp), #%%# ;< *uper #4", &% <)#d 9 (#%%#', appeal denied, .7# ;a) 7., &"9 <)#d .47 (#%%3')
L0NM -alley -ista Development Corp), 7nc) v) City of Bro5en <rroC, "9&& $G "4%, 7 ;)#d 344
($5la) "9&&'= $lson v) 6eith, 7" ?yo) 3", #.7 ;)#d 34# ("9.3') L0N7M Ni1 v) Cassidy, &99 *o) #d
99& (<la) Civ) <pp) #%%4', cert) denied, ($ct) ##, #%%4') L0N&M Gammerman v) Gammerman, .43
<)#d 794 (D)C) "9&&') L0N9M 9cCrac5en v) *ears, +oeAuc5 N Co), ." 9ass) <pp) Ct) "&4, 744
N)()#d "%# (#%%"') L0N"%M ?right v) 6eCis, &7% *o) #d "79 (0la) Dist) Ct) <pp) 4th Dist) #%%4')
L0N""M ;age v) 9iller, #.# N)C) #3, ""3 *)()#d .# ("9%'= 8older v) *cott, 39 *)?)#d 9% (/e1)
Civ) <pp) /e1ar5ana "9.', Crit refused n)r)e), (9ay "", "9') L0N"#M 9artin v) *oden, &" 7daho
#74, 34% ;)#d &4& ("9.9'= 8ughes v) Neely, 33# *)?)#d " (9o) "9%') L0N"3M +oo5 v) +oo5, #33 -a)
9#, 3.3 *)()#d 7. ("9&7') L0N"4M KK 73& to 7") L0N".M 9atheCs v) 9atheCs, 73" *)?)#d &3#
(Gy) Ct) <pp) "9&7'= +oo5 v) +oo5, #33 -a) 9#, 3.3 *)()#d 7. ("9&7') L0N"M 0ed) +) Civ) ;) %(A'
(4')D
DColomAo v) 8eCitt, ##" $r) "#", 3.% ;)#d &93 ("9%') Courts of general Eurisdiction are
presumed to have suAEect2matter Eurisdiction, Aut there is no such presumption aAout courts of limited
Eurisdiction) 9ishler v) County of (l5hart, .44 N)()#d "49 (7nd) "9&9') K 4%) +ecords of courts
e1ercising special or limited Eurisdiction ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest,
Budgment 5"9 No presumption e1ists that a Eudgment rendered Ay a court of limited poCers and
special or inferior Eurisdiction is Cithin its Eurisdiction, and such Eurisdiction must Ae affirmatively
shoCnL0N"M or affirmatively appear of record)L0N#M /he same rule applies to a Eudgment rendered
Ay a court of general Eurisdiction in the e1ercise of a special Eurisdiction)L0N3M L0N"M K 3.) L0N#M
Daniels v) Bordan, "" 9iss) 7&, "34 *o) 9%3 ("93"'= ColomAo v) 8eCitt, ##" $r) "#", 3.% ;)#d &93
("9%') L0N3M 9orehouse v) 9orehouse, ".9 NeA) #.., N)?)#d .79 ("9.4') 7U) +(67(0 0+$9
B:D@9(N/* C) Collateral <ttac5 ") 7n @eneral /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K
73&) <vailaAility of remedy ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 547%,
479 < final Eudgment Ay a court of competent Eurisdiction is generally not suAEect to collateral attac5)
L0N"M 8oCever, a collateral attac5 may Ae alloCed if the Eudgment is void,L0N#M such as Chere a
Eudgment Cas rendered Ay a court Cithout Eurisdiction,L0N3M Chere a Eurisdictional challenge Cas
Aased on inade3uate personal service,L0N4M or Chere the issue Cas suAEect2matter Eurisdiction)L0N.M
Nonetheless, if the Eurisdictional defect does not appear on the face of the Eudgment roll or record, the
Eudgment may Ae considered valid and immune from collateral attac5=L0NM for collateral2attac5
purposes the record includes, among other things, the pleadings and the Eudgment)L0N7M (ven if a
Eudgment is voidaAle, a collateral attac5 on a final Eudgment is not availaAle=L0N&M thus, even if the
Eudgment Cas so irregular or defective that it Could Ae set aside or annulled on a proper direct
- 21-
1
2
application for that purpose, as a general rule it is not suAEect to collateral impeachment as long as it
stands unreversed and in force)L0N9M ?hen revieCing a collateral attac5 on a Eudgment, the court
presumes the validity of the Eudgment under attac5)L0N"%M L0N"M Chicot County Drainage Dist) v)
Ba1ter *tate Ban5, 3%& :)*) 37", % *) Ct) 3"7, &4 6) (d) 3#9 ("94%'= *onya C) By and /hrough
$livas v) <riIona *chool for the Deaf and Blind, 743 0) *upp) 7%%, # (d) 6aC +ep) 947 (D) <riI)
"99%'= ;eery v) *uperior Court, "74 Cal) <pp) 3d "%&., #"9 Cal) +ptr) &&# (4th Dist) "9&.'= Brennan
v) @rover, ".& Colo) , 4%4 ;)#d .44 ("9.'= 6ashgari v) 6ashgari, "97 Conn) "&9, 49 <)#d 49"
("9&.'= *ailAoat Gey Developers v) *un Ban5, 37 *o) #d "%93 (0la) Dist) Ct) <pp) 3d Dist) "979'=
6aCing v) (rCin, #." @a) "34, 3%3 *)()#d 444 ("9&3'= @unnell v) ;almer, 37% 7ll) #%, "& N)()#d
#%#, "#% <)6)+) &7" ("93&'= 7n re Chapman, 4 N)()#d 777 (7nd) Ct) <pp) 3d Dist) "9&4'= *tate v)
9inniefield, 47 *o) #d ""9& (6a) Ct) <pp) #d Cir) "9&.'= Director of Div) of (mployment *ec) v)
/oCn of 9attapoisett, 39# 9ass) &.&, 47 N)()#d "33, "9 (d) 6aC +ep) ""3" ("9&4'= *tate e1 rel)
+ayl v) 8ettinger County, 47 N)?)#d 9& (N)D) "99"'= @eorge v) 7nfantolino, 44 <)#d 7.7 (+)7)
"9&#'= (1 parte 8overmale, 3 *)?)#d &#& (/e1) <pp) *an <ntonio "9&#'= 0ortner v) 0ortner, "&
?) -a) 7%, #&# *)()#d 4& ("9&"'= *tate v) 9adison, "#% ?is) #d ".%, 3.3 N)?)#d &3. (Ct) <pp)
"9&4') <s to the distinction AetCeen a collateral attac5 and a direct attac5, see K 744) L0N#M *onya C)
By and /hrough $livas v) <riIona *chool for the Deaf and Blind, 743 0) *upp) 7%%, # (d) 6aC +ep)
947 (D) <riI) "99%'= *ailAoat Gey Developers v) *un Ban5, 37 *o) #d "%93 (0la) Dist) Ct) <pp) 3d
Dist) "979'= B)6)9) v) +)6)C), Br), "3# *)?)3d #79 (9o) Ct) <pp) ?)D) #%%4'= *tate v) ?essels, #3#
NeA) ., 439 N)?)#d 4&4 ("9&9') L0N3M Carroll v) :)*), 339 0)3d " (#d Cir) #%%3'= :)*) v) Bigford,
3. 0)3d &.9 ("%th Cir) #%%4'= 9Cani v) Ain 6aden, 4"7 0)3d ", # 0ed) +) *erv) 3d 3# (D)C) Cir)
#%%.'= Gent v) ?hite, # @a) <pp) &##, .9& *)()#d ""3 (#%%4', cert) denied, (*ept) 7, #%%4') <s to
grounds upon Chich a collateral attac5 may Ae alloCed, see KK 7.% to 7.3) L0N4M Nore1 ;etroleum
6td) v) <ccess 7ndustries, 7nc), 4" 0)3d "4 (#d Cir) #%%.') L0N.M Gent v) ?hite, # @a) <pp) &##,
.9& *)()#d ""3 (#%%4', cert) denied, (*ept) 7, #%%4') L0NM :)*) v) Bigford, 3. 0)3d &.9 ("%th Cir)
#%%4') L0N7M 8anson v) ?oolston, 7%" N)?)#d #.7 (9inn) Ct) <pp) #%%.', revieC denied, ($ct) "&,
#%%.') L0N&M ;eople v) <egis *ec) 7ns) Co), "3% Cal) <pp) 4th "%7", 3% Cal) +ptr) 3d & (4th Dist)
#%%.'= @ile v) @ile, 333 7ll) <pp) 3d """, #& 7ll) Dec) 79, 777 N)()#d "%%# (.th Dist) #%%#'= ;ope v)
Com), 37 -a) <pp) 4.", ..9 *)()#d 3&& (#%%#'= Boyner v) *tate, #%%# ?> "74, .& ;)3d 33" (?yo)
#%%#') L0N9M Boyner v) *tate, #%%# ?> "74, .& ;)3d 33" (?yo) #%%#') L0N"%M Bohnson v) -entling,
"3# *)?)3d "73 (/e1) <pp) Corpus Christi #%%4') 7U) +(67(0 0+$9 B:D@9(N/* C) Collateral
<ttac5 #) Nature of ;roceedings Constituting Collateral <ttac5 /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle
+eferences K 74&) (ffect of grounds for the attac5 ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer
Digest, Budgment 54& to 4&&, .%", .%&, ."7 <n attac5 upon a Eudgment may Ae considered a direct
attac5, not a Aarred collateral attac5, Chere it is Aased upon grounds Chich Could render the
Eudgment void aA initio,L0N"M Chich may Ae applicaAle in the case of an attac5 upon a Eudgment on
the ground of fraud in its procurement,L0N#M and in the case of an attac5 upon a Eudgment on the
ground of a lac5 of Eurisdiction to render it)L0N3M L0N"M Bric5 v) *overeign @rand 6odge of <ccepted
0ree 9asons of <r5ansas, "9 <r5) 37#, ""7 *)?)#d "%% ("93&'= Gittel v) Gittel, "4 *o) #d &33
(0la) Dist) Ct) <pp) 3d Dist) "94'= 6eslie v) ;roctor N @amAle 9fg) Co), "%# Gan) ".9, "9 ;) "93
("9"7'= +ay v) +ay, 33% 9o) .3%, .% *)?)#d "4# ("93#'= 8ume v) +ic5etts, 9 ?yo) ###, #4% ;)#d
&&" ("9.#' (stating that this principle does not apply e1cept Chen the defect appears upon the face of
the record') L0N#M *5ipper v) *chumacher, "#4 0la) 3&4, "9 *o) .& ("93'= *teCart 6umAer Co) v)
DoCns, "4# 7oCa 4#%, "#% N)?) "%7 ("9%9') L0N3M Bric5 v) *overeign @rand 6odge of <ccepted
0ree 9asons of <r5ansas, "9 <r5) 37#, ""7 *)?)#d "%% ("93&')D
- 22-
1
2
D7U) +(67(0 0+$9 B:D@9(N/* C) Collateral <ttac5 3) @rounds for Collateral <ttac5 a)
7n @eneral /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K 7.%) @enerally= void Eudgments ?est4s
Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 54& to 499 /rial *trategy (ntitlement to
a *tay or Default Budgment +elief :nder the *oldiers4 and *ailors4 Civil +elief <ct, 3. <m) Bur) ;roof
of 0acts 3d 3#3 KK 44 to 47 @enerally a Eudgment may Ae suAEect to collateral attac5 only on
specified grounds, such as that the Eudgment is void due to the court4s lac5 of Eurisdiction over the
suAEect matter or the parties=L0N"M or that the court lac5s the inherent poCer to ma5e or enter the
Eudgment or order involved,L0N#M such that the Eudgment is aAsolutely null and not res Eudicata=
L0N3M or that the court acted in a manner inconsistent Cith due process of laC)L0N4M <n order must
have a Eurisdictional defect apparent from the face of the record at the time that the challenged order
Cas entered to support a collateral attac5 on the order on the theory it Cas void for lac5 of
Eurisdiction= if evidence outside the record is re3uired to shoC the Eurisdictional defect, the challenged
order is only voidaAle, not void)L0N.M Caution: /he presumptions of laC in favor of the validity of
Eudgments rendered Ay courts of competent Eurisdiction, and the conclusiveness of such
presumptions, are particularly applicaAle in collateral proceedings)L0NM < void Eudgment or final
order is suAEect to collateral attac5,L0N7M and such an attac5 may Ae Arought Ay any person affected
Ay it,L0N&M at any time,L0N9M and in any proceedingL0N"%M in a court of e3ual Eurisdiction)L0N""M
*trangers, hoCever, may attac5 a void Eudgment only Chen, if it Cere given full effect, some right in
them Could Ae affected Ay its enforce2ment)L0N"#M < Eudgment may Ae collaterally attac5ed for a
lac5 of Eurisdiction Chen the Eurisdictional defect appears on the face of the record,L0N"3M or Chen
the record affirmatively shoCs that the issuing court lac5ed Eurisdiction)L0N"4M (1trinsic evidence
may not Ae used to estaAlish a lac5 of Eurisdiction Chen collaterally attac5ing a Eudgment)L0N".M <
Eudgment rendered Ay a court having no Eurisdiction of the suAEect matter is void, not merely
voidaAle, and may Ae attac5ed directly or collaterally, anyChere, and at any time= such a Eudgment is
a usurpation of poCer and is an aAsolute nullity)L0N"M <n agreed Eudgment has the same Ainding
force and effect as a Eudgment resulting from a trial to the court or Eury, and such Eudgment is only
suAEect to collateral attac5 if the court rendering the Eudgment lac5ed Eurisdiction to render it) /hus,
as a general rule, contractual defenses are impermissiAle collateral attac5s upon the finality of a trial
court4s Eudgment)L0N"7M C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: Certain class memAers in
multidistrict class action Arought against drug manufacturer Ay former users of diet drugs that Cere
removed from the mar5et due to groCing evidence that they could cause disease could not
collaterally attac5, on motion for relief from Eudgment on ground that Eudgment Cas void, a Eudgment
approving settlement agreement on ground that District Court lac5ed suAEect matter Eurisdiction over
the diversity action Aecause thousands of class memAers Cith only medical monitoring claims did not
meet the amount in controversy re3uirement, Chere issue of suAEect matter Eurisdiction had already
Aeen litigated Ay other class memAers) 7n re Diet Drugs
(;henteramine!0enfluramine!De1fenfluramine' ;roducts 6iaAility 6itigation, 434 0) *upp) #d 3#3
(()D) ;a) #%%') <lthough a collateral attac5 on a final Eudgment may Ae made at any time Chen the
Eudgment under challenge is void Aecause of an aAsence of fundamental Eurisdiction, Chen the
Eudgment under challenge is merely voidaAle Aecause it Cas entered in e1cess of Eurisdiction, it
should Ae challenged directly, and is generally not suAEect to collateral attac5 once the Eudgment is
final unless unusual circumstances are present Chich prevented an earlier attac5) ;eople v) <llegheny
Cas) Co), 4" Cal) 4th 7%4, " Cal) +ptr) 3d &9, "" ;)3d "9& (#%%7') < void Eudgment can Ae
collaterally attac5ed at any time) +odrigueI20aro v) 9) (scarda Contractor, 7nc), 9 *o) 3d "%97 (0la)
Dist) Ct) <pp) 3d Dist) #%""') +es Eudicata applies to a voidaAle sentence and may operate to prevent
consideration of a collateral attac5 Aased on a claim that could have Aeen raised on direct appeal from
- 23-
1
2
the voidaAle sentence) *tate v) *imp5ins, ""7 $hio *t) 3d 4#%, #%%&2$hio2""97, &&4 N)()#d .&
(#%%&', cert) denied, #%%& ?6 3&&94&% (:)*) #%%&') < Eudgment is void only Chen it is apparent that
the court rendering Eudgment had no Eurisdiction of the parties or property, no Eurisdiction of the
suAEect matter, no Eurisdiction to enter the particular Eudgment, or no capacity to act) BroCning v)
;rosto5, ". *)?)3d 33 (/e1) #%%.') $nly a void Eudgment may Ae collaterally attac5ed) BroCning
v) ;rosto5, ". *)?)3d 33 (/e1) #%%.') 0or a Eudgment to Ae suAEect to collateral attac5, it must Ae
void) 7n re $cegueda, 3%4 *)?)3d .7 (/e1) <pp) (l ;aso #%"%', petition for revieC filed, (0eA) #4,
#%"%') < declaratory Eudgment action may not Ae used to collaterally attac5, modify, or interpret a
prior Eudgment) Dallas County /a1 Collector v) <ndolina, 3%3 *)?)3d 9# (/e1) <pp) Dallas #%"%')
L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M *chCaA v) *outhern California @as Co), ""4 Cal) <pp) 4th "3%&, &
Cal) +ptr) 3d #7 (4th Dist) #%%4'= 7n re 9arriage of 8ulstrom, 34# 7ll) <pp) 3d ##, #7 7ll) Dec)
73%, 794 N)()#d 9&% (#d Dist) #%%3'= 7n re /y 9), #. NeA) ".%, .. N)?)#d 7# (#%%3') <s to lac5
of Eurisdiction as a ground for a collateral attac5 in particular, see K 7.&) L0N#M 7n re Canganelli, "3#
B)+) 39 (Ban5r) N)D) 7nd) "99"' (under 7ndiana laC'= *alaIar v) :)*) <ir 0orce, &49 0)#d ".4# (.th
Cir) "9&&'= 8oo5s v) 8oo5s, 77" 0)#d 93. (th Cir) "9&.'= ?est v) Belin, 3"4 <r5) 4%, &.& *)?)#d 97
("993'= 7n re (state of *teinfeld, ".& 7ll) #d ", "9 7ll) Dec) 3, 3% N)()#d &%" ("994'= ;eople v)
?ade, "" 7ll) #d ", "%7 7ll) Dec) 3, .% N)()#d 9.4 ("9&7'= <ltman v) Nelson, "97 9ich) <pp) 47,
49. N)?)#d &# ("99#'= DeCoatsCorth v) Bones, 4"4 ;a) *uper) .&9, %7 <)#d "%94 ("99#', aff4d in
part, rev4d in part on other grounds, .3 ;a) 4"4, 39 <)#d 79# ("994') <s to the effect of an invalid
Eudgment, generally, see KK #& to 3") L0N3M 7n re +aI, &7" *o) #d 33 (6a) Ct) <pp) "st Cir) #%%4')
L0N4M Cooper v) *mith, 7% 8aC) 449, 77 ;)#d ""7& ("9&9') L0N.M 7n re Custody of <yala, 344 7ll)
<pp) 3d .74, #79 7ll) Dec) 4., &%% N)()#d .#4 ("st Dist) #%%3') L0NM 0arnsCorth v) :)*), #3# 0)#d
.9, # <)6)+)#d 4#3 (D)C) Cir) "9.'= *onya C) By and /hrough $livas v) <riIona *chool for the
Deaf and Blind, 743 0) *upp) 7%%, # (d) 6aC +ep) 947 (D) <riI) "99%'= NeCman v) NeCman, 4# 7ll)
<pp) #d #%3, "9" N)()#d "4, <)6)+)3d 7% ("st Dist) "93'= Bac5son v) *laughter, "&. *)?)#d 7.9
(/e1) Civ) <pp) /e1ar5ana "944', Crit refused C)o)m)) L0N7M 8oo5s v) 8oo5s, 77" 0)#d 93. (th Cir)
"9&.'= ;hillips v) NaAors <las5a Drilling, 7nc), 74% ;)#d 4.7 (<las5a "9&7'= 9orris ;lan Co) of 7oCa
v) Bruner, 4.& N)?)#d &.3 (7oCa Ct) <pp) "99%'= @ruAA v) ?urtland ?ater Dist), 3&4 *)?)#d 3#"
(Gy) "94'= -anDe?alle v) <lAion Nat) Ban5, #43 NeA) 49, .%% N)?)#d . ("993'= *tate v)
?essels, #3# NeA) ., 439 N)?)#d 4&4 ("9&9'= 9ayfield v) 8artmann, ##" NeA) "##, 37. N)?)#d
"4 ("9&.'= *tate v) *ustacha, "%& Nev) ##3, &# ;)#d 9.9 ("99#'= Chancellor v) /enneco $il Co),
"9&# $G "##, .3 ;)#d #%4 ($5la) "9&#'= *hac5elford v) Barton, ". *)?)3d %4 (/e1) <pp) /yler
#%%4', reh4g overruled, (Nov) "9, #%%4' and revieC denied, (9ar) "", #%%.'= *tate e1 rel) +)@) v)
?)9)B), ".9 ?is) #d #, 4. N)?)#d ##" (Ct) <pp) "99%') L0N&M +oyal 7ndem) Co) v) 9ayor, etc),
of City of *avannah, #%9 @a) 3&3, 73 *)()#d #%. ("9.#'= 9atheCs v) 9atheCs, 73" *)?)#d &3# (Gy)
Ct) <pp) "9&7'= 8ughes v) Neely, 33# *)?)#d " (9o) "9%') L0N9M 7n re Canganelli, "3# B)+) 39
(Ban5r) N)D) 7nd) "99"' (under 7ndiana laC'= *indler v) Brennan, "%. Cal) <pp) 4th "3.%, "#9 Cal)
+ptr) #d &&& (4th Dist) #%%3', revieC denied, (9ay "4, #%%3'= 9orey 0ish Co) v) +ymer 0oods, 7nc),
".& 7ll) #d "79, "9& 7ll) Dec) 4%9, 3# N)()#d "%#% ("994'= 7n re (state of *teinfeld, ".& 7ll) #d ",
"9 7ll) Dec) 3, 3% N)()#d &%" ("994'= 7n re 9arriage of Boston, "%4 *)?)3d &#. (9o) Ct) <pp)
*)D) #%%3'= -on*eggern v) ?illman, #44 NeA) .., .%& N)?)#d #" ("993'= ?ashington 9ut) Ban5
0< v) 0arhat (nterprises, 7nc), #%%3 $G C7- <;; 7&, 77 ;)3d ""%3 (Div) " #%%3'= ;eet v) ;eet, " -a)
<pp) 3#3, 4#9 *)()#d 4&7 ("993') L0N"%M 8utcheson v) 7oCa Dist) Court for 6ee County, 4&% N)?)#d
#% (7oCa "99#'= -on*eggern v) ?illman, #44 NeA) .., .%& N)?)#d #" ("993'= 9arshall v)
9arshall, #4% NeA) 3##, 4&# N)?)#d " ("99#'= Boyner v) *tate, #%%# ?> "74, .& ;)3d 33" (?yo)
#%%#') L0N""M Ba5ali v) Ba5ali, &3% *)?)#d #." (/e1) <pp) Dallas "99#') L0N"#M 9itchell v)
- 24-
1
2
<utomoAile $Cners 7ndem) :nderCriters, "9 Cal) #d ", ""& ;)#d &"., "37 <)6)+) 9#3 ("94"')
L0N"3M 7n re Custody of <yala, 344 7ll) <pp) 3d .74, #79 7ll) Dec) 4., &%% N)()#d .#4 ("st Dist)
#%%3') L0N"4M 8anson v) ?oolston, 7%" N)?)#d #.7 (9inn) Ct) <pp) #%%.', revieC denied, ($ct) "&,
#%%.') L0N".M /oles v) /oles, ""3 *)?)3d &99 (/e1) <pp) Dallas #%%3') L0N"M +oAerts v) +oAerts,
& *o) #d 474 (9iss) Ct) <pp) #%%3', cert) denied, & *o) #d 473 (9iss) #%%4') L0N"7M *pradley v)
8utchison, 7&7 *)?)#d #"4 (/e1) <pp) 0ort ?orth "99%', Crit denied, (Buly 3, "99%') T #%"#
/homson +euters) 33234B T #%"# /homson +euters!+7<) No Claim to $rig) :)*) @ovt) ?or5s) <ll
rights reserved) <9B:+ B:D@9(N/* K 7.%D
D7U) +(67(0 0+$9 B:D@9(N/* C) Collateral <ttac5 3) @rounds for Collateral <ttac5 a)
7n @eneral /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K 7.") -oidaAle Eudgments ?est4s Gey
NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 54&("', .%% to .%7 < Eudgment that is merely
voidaAle may not Ae attac5ed collaterally)L0N"M /hus, generally, in order to collaterally attac5 a trial
court4s Eudgment, it must Ae shoCn that the Eudgment is void rather than merely defective or voidaAle)
L0N#M < collateral attac5 Cill not lie against a Eudgment voidaAle only for mista5e,L0N3M accident, or
similar defect)L0N4M < voidaAle Eudgment can only Ae challenged on direct appeal)L0N.M L0N"M
;eople v) <egis *ec) 7ns) Co), "3% Cal) <pp) 4th "%7", 3% Cal) +ptr) 3d & (4th Dist) #%%.'= 7n re
Custody of <yala, 344 7ll) <pp) 3d .74, #79 7ll) Dec) 4., &%% N)()#d .#4 ("st Dist) #%%3'= 7n re
;aternity of ;)()9), &"& N)()#d 3# (7nd) Ct) <pp) #%%4'= /hac5er v) 8ale, "4 9d) <pp) #%3, &%
<)#d 7." (#%%#'= Dime *av) Ban5, 0*B v) @reene, #%%# ;< *uper 39#, &"3 <)#d &93 (#%%#') <s to
issues relating to validity of Eudgments, generally, see KK "4 to 4%) L0N#M D4$cchio v) Connecticut
+eal (state Com4n, "&9 Conn) "#, 4.. <)#d &33, 3& <)6)+)4th 77. ("9&3'= NeCman v) NeCman, 4#
7ll) <pp) #d #%3, "9" N)()#d "4, <)6)+)3d 7% ("st Dist) "93'= 9ishler v) County of (l5hart, .44
N)()#d "49 (7nd) "9&9'= *tanton v) *tanton, "4 NeA) 7", "& N)?)#d .4 ("94.') L0N3M *tate e1 rel)
+ayl v) 8ettinger County, 47 N)?)#d 9& (N)D) "99"'= /urner v) Bell, "9& /enn) #3#, #79 *)?)#d 7"
("9..') L0N4M /urner v) Bell, "9& /enn) #3#, #79 *)?)#d 7" ("9..') L0N.M 7n re Canganelli, "3# B)+)
39 (Ban5r) N)D) 7nd) "99"'= D4$cchio v) Connecticut +eal (state Com4n, "&9 Conn) "#, 4.. <)#d
&33, 3& <)6)+)4th 77. ("9&3'= 7n re 9arriage of /rua1, .## N)()#d 4%# (7nd) Ct) <pp) "st Dist)
"9&&'= 7n re ;aternity of ;)()9), &"& N)()#d 3# (7nd) Ct) <pp) #%%4'= @ail v) ?estern Convenience
*tores, 434 N)?)#d &# (7oCa "9&9'= Nolte v) *tate, &.4 *)?)#d 3%4 (/e1) <pp) <ustin "993',
petition for discretionary revieC refused, ($ct) #%, "993'= Ba5ali v) Ba5ali, &3% *)?)#d #." (/e1)
<pp) Dallas "99#')D
D7U) +(67(0 0+$9 B:D@9(N/* C) Collateral <ttac5 3) @rounds for Collateral <ttac5 a)
7n @eneral /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K 7.3) 0raud, collusion, and other
misconduct ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 5.%& to ." /rial
*trategy 0raud in $Ataining or 9aintaining Default Budgment, "% <m) Bur) ;roof of 0acts #d 4#7 KK
". to 4" Budgments may Ae void due to fraud, and thus suAEect to collateral attac5=L0N"M hoCever, a
collateral attac5 cannot Ae maintained on the grounds that the Eudgment Cas oAtained through
fraudulent conduct intrinsic to the Eudgment)L0N#M /hus, Eudgments Aased on e1trinsic fraud may Ae
suAEect to collateral attac5)L0N3M (1trinsic fraud necessarily re3uires evidence not found in the
record)L0N4M < collateral challenge to a Eudgment oAtained Ay e1trinsic fraud is alloCed Aecause such
fraud perverts the Eudicial processes and prevents the court or the non2defrauding party from
discovering the fraud through the regular adversarial process)L0N.M < collateral attac5 on a Eudgment
procured Ay intrinsic fraud is not Carranted Aecause the parties have the opportunity at trial through
cross2e1amination and impeachment to ferret out and e1pose false information presented to the trier
of fact)L0NM *ome courts no longer apply the distinction AetCeen intrinsic and e1trinsic fraud,L0N7M
Aut apply a rule that the fraud alleged need only affect the Aasic fairness of the adEudication to
- 25-
1
2
Carrant a collateral attac5 Aased on fraud)L0N&M <n important issue is Chether there Cas fraud in the
procurement of the Eudgment, and if not, the Eudgment is not suAEect to attac5 in a collateral action)
L0N9M < Eudgment may Ae impeached in a collateral proceeding Chere the fraud affects the
Eurisdiction of the court)L0N"%M /o constitute fraud as to the court4s Eurisdiction, and thus alloCing a
party to collaterally attac5 the Eudgment, the party asserting such fraud must have Aeen deprived of an
opportunity to present a right or defense that the party had in the former proceeding Ay improper
conduct of the party securing the Eudgment)L0N""M @enerally a Eudgment may not Ae impeached in
collateral proceedings, Ay a party or privy to it, for collusionL0N"#M or false testimony)L0N"3M
8oCever, a consent Eudgment may Ae suAEect to collateral attac5 Chen the facts demonstrate that the
Eudgment or settlement Cas entered into fraudulently, collusively, or in Aad faith)L0N"4M ?henever
the rights of third persons are affected, they may collaterally attac5 a Eudgment for fraud committed
Ay one party, or for the collusion of Aoth parties)L0N".M <ccordingly, an unnamed party Chose rights
Cere directly and inEuriously affected Ay a Eudgment fraudulently oAtained may see5 relief from that
Eudgment either Ay motion or Ay an independent collateral attac5, and neither remedy is e1clusive of
the other)L0N"M C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: NeC >or5 laC permits collateral attac5s on
Eudgments oAtained Ay e1trinsic, as opposed to intrinsic, fraud) 7n re ?ard, 4#3 B)+) ## (Ban5r) ()D)
N)>) #%"%') <n attac5 upon a Eudgment Aased on intrinsic fraud is not alloCed Aecause the fraudulent
conduct may Ae properly e1posed and rectified Cithin the conte1t of the underlying adversarial
process itself= in contrast, a collateral attac5 on a Eudgment on the Aasis of e1trinsic fraud is alloCed
Aecause such fraud distorts the Eudicial process to such an e1tent that confidence in the aAility to
discover the fraudulent conduct through the regular adversarial process is undermined) BroCning v)
;rosto5, ". *)?)3d 33 (/e1) #%%.') D(1trinsic fraudD as a Aasis for collateral attac5 on Eudgment is
fraud that denies a losing party the opportunity to fully litigate at trial all the rights or defenses that
could have Aeen asserted= it generally includes Crongful conduct occurring outside of the adversarial
proceedings, and the fraud must Ae collateral to the matter tried and not something Chich Cas
actually or potentially in issue) BroCning v) ;rosto5, ". *)?)3d 33 (/e1) #%%.') ?hen the
fraudulent acts themselves are in issue, or could have Aeen in issue, in the prior proceeding, the fraud
is intrinsic and is not a Aasis for collateral attac5 on Eudgment) BroCning v) ;rosto5, ". *)?)3d 33
(/e1) #%%.') L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M 7n re +oe, 3.# 7ll) <pp) 3d "".., #&& 7ll) Dec) "&,
&"7 N)()#d .44 (#d Dist) #%%4') L0N#M *langal v) @etIin, "4& 0)+)D) 9" (D) NeA) "993'= Canal
<uthority of *tate of 0la) v) 8arAond, 7nc), 433 *o) #d "34. (0la) Dist) Ct) <pp) .th Dist) "9&3'=
BroCning v) ;rosto5, ". *)?)3d 33 (/e1) #%%.'= Bones v) ?illard, ##4 -a) %#, #99 *)()#d .%4
("9&3'= ;eet v) ;eet, " -a) <pp) 3#3, 4#9 *)()#d 4&7 ("993') <s to fraud as a ground for a motion
see5ing relief from a Eudgment, pursuant to a rule providing for such relief, as opposed to an
independent action see5ing relief from a Eudgment, see KK 94 to 99) <s to application of distinction
of e1trinsic versus intrinsic fraud in motions for relief Aased on fraud in particular, see K 9) <s to
distinction AetCeen intrinsic and e1trinsic fraud relative to grounds for an independent action in
e3uity for relief from a Eudgment, see K 7#%) L0N3M @riffith v) Ban5 of N)>), "47 0)#d &99, "%
<)6)+) "34% (C)C)<) #d Cir) "94.' (applying NeC >or5 laC'= *onya C) By and /hrough $livas v)
<riIona *chool for the Deaf and Blind, 743 0) *upp) 7%%, # (d) 6aC +ep) 947 (D) <riI) "99%'=
*outheastern Colorado ?ater Conservancy Dist) v) Cache Cree5 9in) /rust, &.4 ;)#d "7 (Colo)
"993'= *mith v) *mith, 334 N)C) &", 43" *)()#d "9 ("993'= +oo5 v) +oo5, #33 -a) 9#, 3.3 *)()#d
7. ("9&7'= Bones v) ?illard, ##4 -a) %#, #99 *)()#d .%4 ("9&3'= ;eet v) ;eet, " -a) <pp) 3#3, 4#9
*)()#d 4&7 ("993'= /aylor v) (state of /aylor, 7"9 ;)#d #34 (?yo) "9&') L0N4M ?ilson v) ?ilson,
"3# *)?)3d .33 (/e1) <pp) 8ouston "st Dist) #%%4', revieC denied, (Buly ", #%%4') L0N.M ;eet v)
;eet, " -a) <pp) 3#3, 4#9 *)()#d 4&7 ("993') L0NM Canal <uthority of *tate of 0la) v) 8arAond,
- 26-
1
2
7nc), 433 *o) #d "34. (0la) Dist) Ct) <pp) .th Dist) "9&3'= ;eet v) ;eet, " -a) <pp) 3#3, 4#9 *)()#d
4&7 ("993') L0N7M *tate Central Credit :nion v) Bayley, 33 ?is) #d 37, "47 N)?)#d #. ("97')
L0N&M ;epper v) Zions 0irst Nat) Ban5, N)<), &%" ;)#d "44 (:tah "99%') L0N9M *tate v) *toc5land,
# ?is) #d .49, #%%3 ?7 <pp "77, & N)?)#d &"% (Ct) <pp) #%%3') L0N"%M *5ipper v)
*chumacher, "#4 0la) 3&4, "9 *o) .& ("93'= City of Chariton v) B) C) Blun5 Const) Co), #.3 7oCa
&%., ""# N)?)#d &#9 ("9#'= 8overstad v) 0irst Nat) Ban5 N /rust Co), 7 *)D) ""9, 74 N)?)#d 4&,
. <)6)+)#d 93& ("9..') L0N""M 8oo5s v) Bonner, "&7 7ll) <pp) 3d 944, "3. 7ll) Dec) 3&., .43
N)()#d 9.3 ("st Dist) "9&9') L0N"#M *tate e1 rel) +ich v) ?olfe, &% 7daho .3, 33. ;)#d &&4 ("9.9'=
City of Chariton v) B) C) Blun5 Const) Co), #.3 7oCa &%., ""# N)?)#d &#9 ("9#'= *tate e1 rel) -an
8afften v) (llison, #&. 9o) 3%", ## *)?) ..9, "# <)6)+) "".7 ("9#%') L0N"3M *tate e1 rel) +ich v)
?olfe, &% 7daho .3, 33. ;)#d &&4 ("9.9'= City of Chariton v) B) C) Blun5 Const) Co), #.3 7oCa &%.,
""# N)?)#d &#9 ("9#'= 0isher v) De 9arr, ## 9d) .%9, "74 <)#d 34. ("9"') L0N"4M ?olff v)
+oyal 7ns) Co) of <merica, 47# N)?)#d #33 (*)D) "99"') L0N".M +andolph County v) /hompson, .%#
*o) #d 3.7 (<la) "9&7'= Brasher v) 0irst Nat) Ban5, #3# <la) 34%, "& *o) 4# ("93'= Bannoc5 /itle
Co) v) 6indsey, & 7daho .&3, 3&& ;)#d "%"" ("93'= /reece v) /reece, &4 7daho 4.7, 373 ;)#d 7.%
("9#'= *tric5land v) 8ughes, #73 N)C) 4&", "% *)()#d 3"3 ("9&') L0N"M ;earlman v) ;earlman,
4%. *o) #d 74 (0la) Dist) Ct) <pp) 3d Dist) "9&"')D
D7U) +(67(0 0+$9 B:D@9(N/* C) Collateral <ttac5 3) @rounds for Collateral <ttac5 A)
(rrors and 7rregularities in ;roceedings /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K 7.4)
@enerally ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 54&, 4&7, .%% to ."7
?hile in limited circumstances a collateral attac5 may Ae used to set aside a Eudgment that involves
fundamental error,L0N"M generally a Eudgment of a court of competent Eurisdiction may not Ae
impeached collaterally for mere errors or irregularities committed Ay the court in the e1ercise of its
Eurisdiction,L0N#M even though the error is one of laC,L0N3M and even though the error or irregularity
appears on the face of the record)L0N4M < Eudgment of a court having Eurisdiction over the parties and
the suAEect matter is presumptively Ainding until set aside in a manner prescriAed Ay laC, and this is
true regardless of any purported irregularity or error in the Eudgment)L0N.M 0undamental error is not
suAEect to precise definition, Aut generally is such error as Could render a Eudgment void)L0NM 7n
contrast, Chere a statute authoriIes a court to do a particular thing, and the poCer of the court to act is
suAEect to certain limitations named, a Eudgment of the court rendered contrary to the limitations
named is not void for Cant of Eurisdiction nor suAEect to collateral attac5, Aut is voidaAle only=L0N7M
that is, Chile errors other than Eurisdictional deficiencies may render a Eudgment voidaAle, such errors
must Ae corrected on direct attac5, not collaterally)L0N&M < Eudgment rendered Ay a court having
Eurisdiction of the suAEect matter and the parties is generally not suAEect to collateral attac5 Aecause of
mere defects in the pleadings)L0N9M 7n particular, a default Eudgment Aased on pleadings Chich are
merely lac5ing in allegations of fact sufficient to fully state a cause of action may not Ae collaterally
attac5ed)L0N"%M C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: ?here a court lac5s Eurisdiction over the
parties or the suAEect matter, or lac5s the inherent poCer to ma5e or enter the particular order, its
Eudgment is void= Aut Chere the court has personal and suAEect matter Eurisdiction, a procedural
irregularity renders a Eudgment merely voidaAle, not suAEect to collateral attac5) 7n re (states of
*maldino, "." ?ash) <pp) 3., #"# ;)3d .79 (Div) " #%%9') L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M
*hac5elford v) Barton, ". *)?)3d %4 (/e1) <pp) /yler #%%4', reh4g overruled, (Nov) "9, #%%4' and
revieC denied, (9ar) "", #%%.') L0N#M ;hillips v) NaAors <las5a Drilling, 7nc), 74% ;)#d 4.7 (<las5a
"9&7'= 9offat v) 9offat, #7 Cal) 3d 4., ". Cal) +ptr) &77, "# ;)#d 97 ("9&%'= *tate v) ?essels,
#3# NeA) ., 439 N)?)#d 4&4 ("9&9'= Berry v) Berry, 7& *)?)#d 7# (/e1) "99%') L0N3M 7n re
Canganelli, "3# B)+) 39 (Ban5r) N)D) 7nd) "99"'= 8udson v) <etna 6ife 7ns) Co), .4. 0) *upp) #%9
- 27-
1
2
(()D) 9o) "9&#'= @ail v) ?estern Convenience *tores, 434 N)?)#d &# (7oCa "9&9'= *tate e1 rel)
+itthaler v) Gno1, #"7 NeA) 7, 3." N)?)#d 77, "& (d) 6aC +ep) 434 ("9&4'= Daniels v)
9ontgomery 9ut) 7ns) Co), 3#% N)C) 9, 3% *)()#d 77# ("9&7') L0N4M 7selin v) 6a Coste, "47 0)#d
79" (C)C)<) .th Cir) "94.'= *ontag Chain *tores Co) v) *uperior Court in and for 6os <ngeles
County, "& Cal) #d 9#, ""3 ;)#d &9 ("94"'= 6ee v) 8arvey, "94. $G 3, "9. $5la) "7&, ". ;)#d "34
("94.'= ;lumA v) Gleimann, #34 *)?)#d 444 (/e1) Civ) <pp) @alveston "9.%', Crit refused n)r)e))
L0N.M @rand v) 8ope, #74 @a) <pp) #, "7 *)()#d .93 (#%%.', cert) denied, (Dec) ", #%%.') L0NM
$sAorne v) 9ollman ?ater Conditioning, 7nc), #%%3 $G C7- <;; #%, . ;)3d 3# (Div) 4 #%%#',
cert) denied, (0eA) #4, #%%3') L0N7M /hac5er v) 8ale, "4 9d) <pp) #%3, &% <)#d 7." (#%%#') L0N&M
<rmentor v) Gern, #%%. ?6 ".4%%.4 (/e1) <pp) 8ouston "st Dist) #%%.') L0N9M /hompson v)
/olmie, #7 :)*) ".7, 7 6) (d) 3&", "&#9 ?6 3"77 ("&#9'= *tate v) Clements, #"7 <la) &., ""7 *o)
#9 ("9#&'= 8epAurn v) Chapman, "%9 0la) "33, "49 *o) "9 ("933'= 7ncorporated Consultants v)
/odd, "7. $hio *t) 4#., #. $hio $p) #d 44%, "9. N)()#d 7&& ("94'= 6ee v) 8arvey, "94. $G 3,
"9. $5la) "7&, ". ;)#d "34 ("94.'= ;lumA v) Gleimann, #34 *)?)#d 444 (/e1) Civ) <pp) @alveston
"9.%', Crit refused n)r)e) L0N"%M 8urst v) <) +) <) 9fg) Co), ... *)?)#d "4" (/e1) Civ) <pp) 0ort
?orth "977', Crit refused n)r)e), (Dec) 7, "977')D
D7U) +(67(0 0+$9 B:D@9(N/* C) Collateral <ttac5 3) @rounds for Collateral <ttac5 A)
(rrors and 7rregularities in ;roceedings /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K 7.7)
;articular irregularities in proceedings ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest,
Budgment 5.%4 to .%4(4' < Eudgment of a court of competent Eurisdiction may not Ae collaterally
attac5ed on the ground that it Cas rendered upon insufficient evidence=L0N"M in particular, a
Eudgment may not Ae suAEected to collateral attac5 Ay an e1amination of the evidence for the purpose
of determining Chether a directed verdict Cas Eustified)L0N#M 7t is a general rule of laC that findings
of a court may not Ae draCn into 3uestion in a collateral proceeding=L0N3M thus, mista5es in findings
of facts Ay the court usually are not grounds for a collateral attac5 on the Eudgment)L0N4M /he fact
that a Eudgment is incorrectly draCn does not render it suAEect to collateral attac5, particularly Chere
the inaccuracies are mere matters of form,L0N.M Aut even if the court4s Eudgment includes an error of
laC, that does not render the court4s order void and suAEect to collateral attac5)L0NM 7f the amount of
the Eudgment is uncertain, hoCever, it may Ae suAEect to collateral attac5)L0N7M < plaintiff may raise a
collateral attac5 on an order ta1ing costs as a defense to a defendant4s motion to dismiss only if the
order ta1ing costs Cas void from the Aeginning)L0N&M @enerally, a Eudgment may not Ae attac5ed
collaterally Aecause of an irregularity in the entry,L0N9M recording, or doc5eting of it)L0N"%M L0N"M
6aCing v) (rCin, #." @a) "34, 3%3 *)()#d 444 ("9&3'= 8arris v) Chicago 8ouse2?rec5ing Co), 3"4
7ll) .%%, "4. N)() ("9#4') L0N#M ?agner (lectric 9fg) Co) v) 6yndon, ## :)*) ##, 43 *) Ct)
.&9, 7 6) (d) 9" ("9#3') L0N3M *tephenson v) Girtley, #9 :)*) "3, 4 *) Ct) .%, 7% 6) (d) #"3
("9#.'= Broo5s v) Ba5er, #%& <r5) .4, "&7 *)?)#d "9 ("94.') L0N4M Broo5s v) Ba5er, #%& <r5)
.4, "&7 *)?)#d "9 ("94.'= *tephenson v) NeC $rleans N N) () +) Co), "&% 9iss) "47, "77 *o) .%9
("937') L0N.M ;richard v) Nelson, "37 0)#d 3"# (C)C)<) 4th Cir) "943'= Barrell v) Cole, #". 0) 3".
(C)C)<) 4th Cir) "9"4') L0NM +oCland v) 0arm Credit Ban5 of *t) 6ouis, 4" <r5) <pp) 79, &4&
*)?)#d 433 ("993') L0N7M @aston v) +econstruction 0inance Corporation, #37 <la) """, "&. *o) &93
("939') L0N&M Daniels v) 9ontgomery 9ut) 7ns) Co), 3#% N)C) 9, 3% *)()#d 77# ("9&7') L0N9M
*tate e1 rel) +itthaler v) Gno1, #"7 NeA) 7, 3." N)?)#d 77, "& (d) 6aC +ep) 434 ("9&4') L0N"%M
+eeves v) Bersey City, " N)B) *uper) #3", &4 <)#d 4# (County Ct) "9."')D
D7U) +(67(0 0+$9 B:D@9(N/* C) Collateral <ttac5 3) @rounds for Collateral <ttac5 c)
6ac5 of Burisdiction= 7rregularities as to Notice or <ppearance /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle
+eferences K 7.&) @enerally ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 54&9,
- 28-
1
2
49., 49 /he general rule is that the aAsence of Eurisdiction of a court to render a particular Eudgment
constitutes sufficient cause for a collateral attac5 upon the Eudgment)L0N"M /he collateral attac5 may
Ae made Ay a party Chose rights or interests are adversely affected Ay the EudgmentL0N#M Chenever it
is sought to Ae enforced)L0N3M ?hile in most Eurisdictions a collateral attac5 may Ae availaAle
Chether the alleged lac5 of Eurisdiction is in regard to the suAEect mat2terL0N4M or over the parties,
L0N.M in some instances a Eudgment may not Ae attac5ed, in a collateral proceeding, for a lac5 of
suAEect2matter Eurisdiction,L0NM and in particular, a party that has had an opportunity to litigate the
3uestion of suAEect2matter Eurisdiction may Ae Aarred from reopening that 3uestion in a collateral
attac5 upon an adverse Eudgment)L0N7M 8oCever, general presumptions in favor of the Eurisdiction of
a court to render a particular Eudgment, and of the presence of Eurisdictional facts, are applicaAle in
attempts to impeach a Eudgment collaterally)L0N&M /hus, Chen the Eurisdiction of a court is called into
3uestion in a collateral proceeding, the Eurisdiction presumptively, and in the aAsence of fraud or
collusion, is conclusively estaAlished Ay an allegation of the Eurisdictional facts contained in a
verified pleading)L0N9M <pplicaAle principles of full faith and credit permit a collateral attac5 upon a
recitation of Eurisdiction in a foreign Eudgment Chen the party had no fair opportunity to litigate the
3uestion in the foreign court)L0N"%M C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: ;ursuant to aAsolute
verity rules, if the Eurisdictional defect does not appear on the face of the Eudgment roll or record, the
Eudgment is considered valid and therefore immune from collateral attac5) :)*) v) Bigford, 3. 0)3d
&.9 ("%th Cir) #%%4') 7n a collateral attac5 on a Eudgment Aased on Eurisdictional defect, the
recitations of the Eudgment control the rest of the record, and e1trinsic evidence cannot Ae used to
estaAlish a lac5 of Eurisdiction) NarvaeI v) 9aldonado, "#7 *)?)3d 3"3 (/e1) <pp) <ustin #%%4')
L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M *chCaA v) *outhern California @as Co), ""4 Cal) <pp) 4th "3%&, &
Cal) +ptr) 3d #7 (4th Dist) #%%4'= 7n re Custody of <yala, 344 7ll) <pp) 3d .74, #79 7ll) Dec) 4.,
&%% N)()#d .#4 ("st Dist) #%%3'= Gueper v) 9urphy DistriAuting, &34 *)?)#d &7. (9o) Ct) <pp) ()D)
"99#'= <pple v) (dCards, "#3 9ont) "3., #"" ;)#d "3& ("949'= +udenEa5 $verseas /ravel Co), 7nc) v)
Deplas, "%% 9isc) #d 9%", 4#% N)>)*)#d 3"3 (N)>) City Civ) Ct) "979'= 9oore v) Connecticut @eneral
6ife 7ns) Co), 7" *)D) ."#, # N)?)#d 9" ("947') <s to availaAility of collateral attac5 of void
Eudgments, generally, see K 7.") L0N#M Clingan v) Department of 6aAor and 7ndustries, 7" ?ash)
<pp) .9%, &% ;)#d 4"7 (Div) " "993') L0N3M Bannoc5 /itle Co) v) 6indsey, & 7daho .&3, 3&& ;)#d
"%"" ("93'= *pencer v) 0ran5s, "73 9d) 73, "9. <) 3%, ""4 <)6)+) #3 ("937'= Bec5 v) Curti, .
Nev) 7#, 4. ;)#d %" ("93.') L0N4M 9arin v) <ugedahl, #47 :)*) "4#, 3& *) Ct) 4.#, # 6) (d) "%3&
("9"&'= ?est v) Belin, 3"4 <r5) 4%, &.& *)?)#d 97 ("993'= :rich v) *tate, #93 <r5) #4, 737 *)?)#d
".. ("9&7'= +oCland v) 0arm Credit Ban5 of *t) 6ouis, 4" <r5) <pp) 79, &4& *)?)#d 433 ("993'=
9orey 0ish Co) v) +ymer 0oods, 7nc), ".& 7ll) #d "79, "9& 7ll) Dec) 4%9, 3# N)()#d "%#% ("994'=
<ltman v) Nelson, "97 9ich) <pp) 47, 49. N)?)#d &# ("99#'= 8unt v) 8unt, #9 *o) #d .4& (9iss)
"99#', on reh4g, ($ct) "4, "994' and (overruled on other grounds Ay, ;oCell v) ;oCell, 44 *o) #d #9
(9iss) "994''= -on2*eggern v) ?illman, #44 NeA) .., .%& N)?)#d #" ("993'= -anDe?alle v)
<lAion Nat) Ban5, #43 NeA) 49, .%% N)?)#d . ("993'= 7n re 7nterest of B)8), #4# NeA) 9%, 497
N)?)#d 34 ("993')= 7n7n re 7nterest of C)?), #39 NeA) &"7, 479 N)?)#d "%. ("99#'= *tate v)
*ustacha, "%& Nev) ##3, &# ;)#d 9.9 ("99#'= ?arCic5 *chool Committee v) ?arCic5 /eachers4
:nion, 6ocal 9"., "3 <)#d "#73, 77 (d) 6aC +ep) &" (+)7) "99#') L0N.M 9arin v) <ugedahl, #47
:)*) "4#, 3& *) Ct) 4.#, # 6) (d) "%3& ("9"&'= Coleman v) Court of <ppeals, Div) No) /Co of *tate
of $5l), ..% 0) *upp) &" (?)D) $5la) "9&%'= 9orey 0ish Co) v) +ymer 0oods, 7nc), ".& 7ll) #d "79,
"9& 7ll) Dec) 4%9, 3# N)()#d "%#% ("994'= -anDe?alle v) <lAion Nat) Ban5, #43 NeA) 49, .%%
N)?)#d . ("993'= *tate v) *ustacha, "%& Nev) ##3, &# ;)#d 9.9 ("99#'= DeCoatsCorth v) Bones,
4"4 ;a) *uper) .&9, %7 <)#d "%94 ("99#', aff4d in part, rev4d in part on other grounds, .3 ;a) 4"4,
- 29-
1
2
39 <)#d 79# ("994') L0NM *nell v) Cleveland, 7nc), 3" 0)3d &##, .4 0ed) +) *erv) 3d .# (9th Cir)
#%%#') L0N7M 7nsurance Corp) of 7reland, 6td) v) Compagnie des Bau1ites de @uinee, 4. :)*) 94,
"%# *) Ct) #%99, 7# 6) (d) #d 49#, 34 0ed) +) *erv) #d " ("9&#'= ;ratt v) -entas, 7nc), 3. 0)3d ."4,
#%%4 0(D <pp) %""3; (th Cir) #%%4'= Donovan v) 9aIIola, 7" 0)#d "4"" (9th Cir) "9&.' (3uestion
is one of opportunity, not Chether the issue Cas actually litigated') L0N&M Coleman v) Court of
<ppeals, Div) No) /Co of *tate of $5l), ..% 0) *upp) &" (?)D) $5la) "9&%'= 9agevney v) Garsch,
"7 /enn) 3#, . *)?)#d .#, 9# <)6)+) 343 ("933') L0N9M 9ayer v) 9anton Cor5 Corp), "# <)D)#d
.#, ."% N)>)*)#d 49 (#d Dep4t "9&7') L0N"%M *laughter v) Com), ### -a) 7&7, #&4 *)()#d &#4
("9&"')D
D7U) +(67(0 0+$9 B:D@9(N/* C) Collateral <ttac5 3) @rounds for Collateral <ttac5 c)
6ac5 of Burisdiction= 7rregularities as to Notice or <ppearance /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle
+eferences K 7.9) 7rregularities as to notice, process, or appearance ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest
?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 549%().' to 49# < Eudgment may Ae attac5ed at any time Chen
the face of the record reveals that no Eurisdiction Cas oAtained over a party Aecause service of process
Cas not perfected)L0N"M /hus, in the aAsence of a Caiver of service, a Eudgment rendered against a
party Cho has not Aeen properly served Cith process of the court, and Cho has not appeared, is an
aAsolute nullity, and such a nullity may Ae asserted collaterally)L0N#M 8oCever, it Cill Ae presumed
that the finding of a court that it has Eurisdiction over the parties to an action is Aased upon sufficient
proof of notice, and such finding may not Ae collaterally attac5ed Chere there is nothing in the record
to shoC otherCise)L0N3M < distinction may Ae made AetCeen cases Chere no service of summons is
had upon the defendant and Chere there is a service Chich is defective or irregular)L0N4M ?hile a
defective notice may render the Eudgment void for lac5 of notice,L0N.M some irregularities are not
sufficient to Eustify alloCing a collateral attac5 on the Eudgment)L0NM < failure to afford oneself of
availaAle remedies or an appeal in the action may also preclude any collateral attac5)L0N7M <s to the
return of service, the general rule is that a Eudgment cannot Ae collaterally attac5ed on the ground that
the return Cas defective, irregular, or informal, particularly Chere the defect or irregularity is
amendaAle)L0N&M <dditionally, an irregularity in connection Cith the service of process Ay
puAlication does not necessarily render the Eudgment suAEect to collateral attac5)L0N9M <n
unauthoriIed appearance of counsel on Aehalf of a party otherCise not served Cith process may result
in the suAse3uent Eudgment Aeing suAEect to collateral attac5 in some Eurisdictions or circumstances,
L0N"%M Chile such a Eudgment is not suAEect to collateral attac5 in oth2ers)L0N""M L0N"M Girchoff v)
Benne, &"9 *o) #d 9.9 (0la) Dist) Ct) <pp) 4th Dist) #%%#') L0N#M DeNardo v) 9unicipality of
<nchorage, 77. ;)#d .". (<las5a "9&9'= (ly v) :)*) Coal N Co5e Co), #43 Gy) 7#., 49 *)?)#d "%#"
("93#'= *tate v) 9cCreary, "9 *o) #d 7.. (6a) Ct) <pp) 4th Cir) "993') L0N3M 8olliday v) <rthur, #4"
7oCa ""93, 44 N)?)#d 7"7, #4 <)6)+)#d "3%# ("9.%'= 9orris ;lan Co) of 7oCa v) Bruner, 4.&
N)?)#d &.3 (7oCa Ct) <pp) "99%') L0N4M 8oneyCell v) <aron, ##& 9iss) #&4, && *o) #d ..& ("9.')
L0N.M 9eritor 9ortg) Corp)2(ast v) 8enderson, 4#" ;a) *uper) 339, "7 <)#d "3#3 ("99#') L0NM
6)C) Bones /ruc5ing Co) v) *uperior $il Co), & ?yo) 3&4, #34 ;)#d &%# ("9."') L0N7M <guirre v)
9oor ;ar5 7nv) Co), .7% *)?)#d "%3 (/e1) Civ) <pp) (l ;aso "97&', dismissed, (Dec) , "97&') L0N&M
+eed v) @eneral 9otors <cceptance Corp), ##& 9iss) "#", &7 *o) #d 9. ("9.') L0N9M Noonan v)
9ontgomery, #4 <riI) 3"", #%9 ;) 3%#, #. <)6)+) "#." ("9##'= Douglas County v) 0eenan, "4 NeA)
"., "& N)?)#d 74%, ".9 <)6)+) .9 ("94.') L0N"%M ?eAer v) ;oCers, #"3 7ll) 37%, 7# N)() "%7%
("9%4'= *5yline <gency, 7nc) v) <mArose Coppotelli, 7nc), ""7 <)D)#d "3., .%# N)>)*)#d 479 (#d
Dep4t "9&') L0N""M @agnon Co) v) Nevada Desert 7nn, 4. Cal) #d 44&, #&9 ;)#d 4 ("9..'= Co1 v)
0irst Nat) Ban5 of ?oodlaCn, 4# N)()#d 4# (7nd) Ct) <pp) "st Dist) "9&"'= Cooper v) 6ittle, #9
/enn) <pp) &., #%" *)?)#d #"% ("94')D
- 30-
1
2
DK 7%) (ffect of status of record as to Eurisdiction ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey
NumAer Digest, Budgment 5497("' to 497(3' 7n general, a Eudgment is suAEect to collateral attac5 for
lac5 of Eurisdiction if the Eurisdictional defect is apparent on the face of the record)L0N"M 7f the
Eurisdictional defect does not appear on the face of the Eudgment roll or record, the Eudgment is
considered valid and therefore immune from collateral attac5)L0N#M :nder this rule, the validity of a
Eudgment Chen collaterally attac5ed must Ae tried Ay an inspection of the record alone,L0N3M and no
other or further evidence on the suAEect is admissiAle,L0N4M even though such evidence might Ae
sufficient to impeach the Eudgment in a direct proceeding against it)L0N.M ?here the record is silent,
it Cill Ae presumed that Eurisdictional facts Cere duly proved)L0NM < collateral attac5 upon a
Eudgment on the ground of the aAsence of Eurisdiction is precluded Ay statements in the record in
regard to Eurisdiction or in regard to the presence of particular Eurisdictional facts)L0N7M /he
recitations of the Eudgment control the rest of the record, and e1trinsic evidence cannot Ae used to
estaAlish a lac5 of Eurisdiction)L0N&M /hus, a recital in the record as to the presence of Eurisdictional
facts may not Ae impeached or contradicted in a collateral proceeding Ay evidence outside the record)
L0N9M 7n determining Chether a lac5 of Eurisdiction is apparent from the record, so as to Carrant
collateral attac5 on the Eudgment, the court loo5s to the Chole record, Chich includes the pleadings,
the return on the process, the verdict of the Eury, and the Eudgment or decree of the court)L0N"%M 7n
general, a recital in a Eudgment of the presence of a Eurisdictional fact may Ae impeached in a
collateral proceeding Ay a positive contrary shoCing of the remainder of the record upon Chich the
Eudgment is Aased)L0N""M /his is particularly true Chere the recital in the Eudgment e1pressly refers
to the record evidence upon Chich it is Aased)L0N"#M /he recital is regarded, in collateral
proceedings, as conclusive, hoCever, unless the contradiction Ay other parts of the record is direct,
e1plicit, and irreconcilaAle)L0N"3M C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: ?hen an order or a
Eudgment of a court is collaterally attac5ed, the only evidence that may Ae considered in determining
Chether the order or Eudgment is void is the record in the proceeding in Chich it Cas entered= if the
record is silent as to the e1istence of a Eurisdictional fact, that fact Cill Ae presumed) ;eople v)
<llegheny Cas) Co), 4" Cal) 4th 7%4, " Cal) +ptr) 3d &9, "" ;)3d "9& (#%%7') < collateral attac5 of
a Eudgment fails if the Eudgment contains Eurisdictional recitals, even if other parts of the record shoC
a lac5 of Eurisdiction) Bohnson v) -entling, "3# *)?)3d "73 (/e1) <pp) Corpus Christi #%%4') L(ND
$0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M 9anning v) ?ingo, .77 *o) #d &. (<la) "99"'= +oCland v) 0arm Credit
Ban5 of *t) 6ouis, 4" <r5) <pp) 79, &4& *)?)#d 433 ("993'= ;eople v) Cavanna, #"4 Cal) <pp) 3d
"%.4, #3 Cal) +ptr) "77 (#d Dist) "9&9'= *teffens v) *teffens, 4%& 7ll) ".%, 9 N)()#d 4.& ("9."'=
8anson v) ?oolston, 7%" N)?)#d #.7 (9inn) Ct) <pp) #%%.', revieC denied, ($ct) "&, #%%.') L0N#M
:)*) v) Bigford, 3. 0)3d &.9 ("%th Cir) #%%4') L0N3M +eeves v) Bersey City, " N)B) *uper) #3", &4
<)#d 4# (County Ct) "9."'= (1 parte 8igdon, 3% ?ash) #d .4, "9# ;)#d 744 ("94&') L0N4M
<ramovich v) Doles, #44 7nd) .&, "9. N)()#d 4&" ("94'= *tate e1 rel) *teCart v) Blair, 3.7 9o)
#&7, #%& *)?)#d #& ("947') L0N.M +ay v) +ay, 33% 9o) .3%, .% *)?)#d "4# ("93#'= (1 parte
8igdon, 3% ?ash) #d .4, "9# ;)#d 744 ("94&') L0NM ;ettit v) <merican Nat) Ban5 of <ustin, "9&#
$G &., 49 ;)#d .#. ($5la) "9&#') L0N7M Ballard v) 8unter, #%4 :)*) #4", #7 *) Ct) #", ." 6) (d)
4" ("9%7'= /oles v) /oles, ""3 *)?)3d &99 (/e1) <pp) Dallas #%%3') L0N&M NarvaeI v) 9aldonado,
"#7 *)?)3d 3"3 (/e1) <pp) <ustin #%%4') L0N9M +oAinson v) $lin 0ederal Credit :nion, 4& B)+) 73#
(D) Conn) "9&4'= 6ampson 6umAer Co) v) 8oer, "39 Conn) #94, 93 <)#d "43 ("9.#'= 8uffstutlar v)
Goons, 7&9 *)?)#d 7%7 (/e1) <pp) Dallas "99%') L0N"%M *tate Ban5 of 6a5e Zurich v) /hill, ""3 7ll)
#d #94, "%% 7ll) Dec) 794, 497 N)()#d "". ("9&') L0N""M /eynor v) 8eiAle, 74 ?ash) ###, "33 ;) "
("9"3'= 6)C) Bones /ruc5ing Co) v) *uperior $il Co), & ?yo) 3&4, #34 ;)#d &%# ("9."') L0N"#M
- 31-
1
2
/eynor v) 8eiAle, 74 ?ash) ###, "33 ;) " ("9"3') L0N"3M /oCn of ;oint ;leasant v) @reenlee N
8arden, 3 ?) -a) #%7, % *)() %" ("9%7')D
DK 7") (ffect of status of record as to notice or process ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s
Gey NumAer Digest, Budgment 549.(#', 497(#', 497(3' ?hile a Eurisdictional challenge in a
collateral proceeding may Ae Aased on inade3uate service,L0N"M the failure of the record of a court of
general Eurisdiction to recite a service of summons alone does not suAEect the Eudgment to collateral
attac5)L0N#M ?here the record of a Eudgment is silent Cith respect to the shoCing of service or notice
on the parties, it may not Ae collaterally attac5ed Ay evidence outside the Eudgment record)L0N3M
8oCever, the rule that a Eudgment may Ae suAEect to collateral attac5 Aecause of its rendition against
one Cho Cas never legally served Cith process of the court may Ae applied Chere the aAsence, or
defect, of notice or of service of process appears upon the record)L0N4M /he recital of due service of
process, in the Eudgment, may Ae impeached in a collateral proceeding Ay a positive contrary shoCing
of the remainder of the record upon Chich the Eudgment is Aased)L0N.M ?here the remainder of the
record positively shoCs a void service of process, the recital in the Eudgment does not give rise in a
collateral proceeding to a presumption of another service)L0NM 8oCever, there is authority for the
vieC that upon collateral attac5 a recital in a Eudgment of due service of process upon a defendant
imports aAsolute verity and may not Ae contradicted Ay other portions of the record shoCing a failure
to comply Cith the re3uirements of laC as to service of process)L0N7M < recital in a Eudgment of due
process ordinarily may Ae impeached or contradicted upon collateral attac5 Ay an officer4s return
appearing in the record, particularly Chere the recital in the Eudgment refers to and identifies the
process or the return upon Chich the recital is Aased)L0N&M L0N"M Nore1 ;etroleum 6td) v) <ccess
7ndustries, 7nc), 4" 0)3d "4 (#d Cir) #%%.') L0N#M <nderson4s Committee v) <nderson4s <dm4r, ""
Gy) "&, "7% *)?) #"3 ("9"4') L0N3M 6ampson 6umAer Co) v) 8oer, "39 Conn) #94, 93 <)#d "43
("9.#'= <ramovich v) Doles, #44 7nd) .&, "9. N)()#d 4&" ("94') L0N4M Chaney v) +eddin, "949
$G , #%" $5la) #4, #%. ;)#d 3"%, & <)6)+)#d 337 ("949'= Gnapp v) ?allace, .% $r) 34&, 9# ;)
"%.4 ("9%7') L0N.M ;oCell v) /urpin, ##4 N)C) 7, #9 *)()#d # ("944'= /eynor v) 8eiAle, 74 ?ash)
###, "33 ;) " ("9"3'= /oCn of ;oint ;leasant v) @reenlee N 8arden, 3 ?) -a) #%7, % *)() %"
("9%7'= 6)C) Bones /ruc5ing Co) v) *uperior $il Co), & ?yo) 3&4, #34 ;)#d &%# ("9."') L0NM
;oCell v) /urpin, ##4 N)C) 7, #9 *)()#d # ("944'= /oCn of Brighton v) /oCn of Charleston, ""4
-t) 3", 44 <)#d #& ("94.') L0N7M *CitIer v) *mith, 3%% *)?) 3", & <)6)+) 377 (/e1) Comm4n
<pp) "9#7') L0N&M /eynor v) 8eiAle, 74 ?ash) ###, "33 ;) " ("9"3')D
0urther, Ay virtue of the admissions made Ay Aoth the *BN and its Cler5 of Court ;eters and
+C< Chief Criminal Deputy City <ttorney ?ong, a level of complicity and prosecutorial misconduct
is evinced in Cler5 of Court ;eters failure to include the tCo purported filings in 3uestion in the
record on appeal transmitted from N@"#2%#%4,%434,%43. to the N*C/ in #337 (ie, those purported
filings of "!3!"3 and "!"7!"3':
D777) /itle, /enure, +emoval, or *uspension C) +emoval or *uspension from $ffice ")
+emoval from $ffice K #") @rounds for removalS;articular applications ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest
?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Cler5s of Courts 5& (1amples of sufficient grounds for removing a cler5
of court from office include: V misappropriation of funds to the cler54s personal useL0N"M V a
conviction of theft in office giving rise to a statutory dis3ualificationL0N#M V the failure to maintain
proper records and accountsL0N3M V ma5ing disparaging statements aAout a EudgeL0N4M V an offense
involving moral turpitudeL0N.M V Cillful misconduct in officeL0NM V failure to folloC to the letter
and in the utmost good faith the direction of the EudgeL0N7M V misfeasance in office or neglect of
official duty tantamount to fraudL0N&M L0N"M 6eCis v) *tate e1 rel) (vans, 3&7 *o) #d 79. (<la)
"9&%') L0N#M *tate e1 rel) Corrigan v) 8aAere5, 3. $hio *t) 3d ".%, ."& N)()#d "#% ("9&&') L0N3M
- 32-
1
2
7n re $verstreet, &." *)?)#d 4.& (Gy) "993') L0N4M -oigt v) *avell, 7% 0)3d "..# (9th Cir) "99.')
L0N.M 6eCis v) *tate e1 rel) (vans, 3&7 *o) #d 79. (<la) "9&%') L0NM 7n re <ntonelli, 4#9 9ass)
44, 7"" N)()#d "%4 ("999') L0N7M *tate e1 rel) Core v) 9errifield, #%# ?) -a) "%%, .%# *)()#d "97
("99&') L0N&M CommonCealth e1 rel) <ttorney @eneral v) 0urste, #&& Gy) 3.&, ". *)?)#d "9&
("94"') <9B:+ C6(+G*$0C/ K #"D
<) 6iaAility for Negligence or 9isconduct ") 7n @eneral /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle
+eferences K ..) @enerally ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Cler5s of Courts
57# to 7. <s a puAlic administrative officerL0N"M or ministerial officer, a court cler5 is ansCeraAle
for any act of negligence or misconduct in office resulting in an inEury to the complaining party,L0N#M
or a violation of applicaAle standards of professional conduct,L0N3M in the aAsence of immunity)
L0N4M /o render the cler5 of a court and the sureties on the cler54s official Aond liaAle for the cler54s
misfeasance, the complaining party must shoC a duty on the part of the cler5,L0N.M a Areach of the
duty, and conse3uent damage to the complainant,L0NM meeting the normal standards of direct and
pro1imate cause)L0N7M ;ractice /ip: 7n a professional disciplinary proceeding resulting in the censure
of a court cler5, the cler54s status as an attorney raised the applicaAle standards of performance higher
than otherCise might apply to a nonattorney holding the position)L0N&M Caution: 9onetary sanctions
against a county circuit court cler5 Cere Carranted Chere evidence shoCed that the cler5
misunderstood the nature and severity of the serious mista5es that repeatedly occurred in the cler54s
offices including the failure to provide notice of the entry of civil orders and Eudgments to parties)
L0N9M < court cler5 may Ae suAEect to criminal liaAility for misconduct or Crongful acts on the course
of his or her duties and in violation of criminal statutes)L0N"%M L0N"M (1 parte City of /us5egee, 93#
*o) #d &9. (<la) #%%.') L0N#M *amuel v) 9ichaud, 9&% 0) *upp) "3&" (D) 7daho "99', aff4d, "#9 0)3d
"#7 (9th Cir) "997'= 9acGerron v) 9acGerron, .7" <)#d &"% (9e) "99%') L0N3M 7n re Dunn, #%""
?6 "3"39.3 (9iss) #%""' (monetary sanctions'= 7n re Chepiga, .7 <)D)3d "%&9, && N)>)*)#d 4"
(3d Dep4t #%%&' (censure') L0N4M KK .& to %) L0N.M 8arms v) Bierman, 3" 7ll) <pp) 3d #.%, #9 7ll)
Dec) 79", &3 N)()#d #% (3d Dist) #%%.' (cler5 had no duty to convey vacating order to sheriff4s
office'= BoAo v) *tate, 34 9d) 7%, 97 <)#d "37" ("997') L0NM 7nstallment ;lan, 7nc) v) Bustice,
#%9 *o) #d & (6a) Ct) <pp) 4th Cir) "9&', cert) denied= 6oper v) <ustin, "979 $G &4, .9 ;)#d .44
($5la) "979') L0N7M Coo5 v) City of /ope5a, #3# Gan) 334, .4 ;)#d 9.3, 34 <)6)+)4th ""7# ("9&#'=
;raggastis v) Clac5amas County, 3%. $r) 4"9, 7.# ;)#d 3%# ("9&&'= CommonCealth 0ederal *av) and
6oan <ss4n v) ;ettit, "37 ;a) CommC) .#3, .& <)#d "%#" ("99"') L0N&M 7n re Chepiga, .7 <)D)3d
"%&9, && N)>)*)#d 4" (3d Dep4t #%%&') L0N9M 7n re Dunn, #%"" ?6 "3"39.3 (9iss) #%""') L0N"%M
*tate v) @reene, "7" @a) <pp) 3#9, 3#% *)()#d "&3 ("9&4' (falsifying puAlic records as violation of
oath of puAlic officer'= BroCn v) *tate, &4 N)()#d .#9 (7nd) Ct) <pp) "997' (violation of ghost
employment statute')
$ne Cho has suffered an inEury from a cler54s failure to properly perform a specific duty
imposed Ay laC has a cause of action against the officer, founded not on contract, Aut on the Areach of
the duty) 9c@ee v) 8ic5s, 3%3 @a) <pp) "3%, 93 *)()#d "3% (#%"%', cert) granted, (*ept) #%, #%"%'
and aff4d Aut criticiIed on other grounds, "" 0ulton County D) +ep) #%9, #%"" ?6 #"%3& (@a)
#%""' (action for negligence')
< Crit of mandamus may issue to compel a cler54s performance of nondiscretionary
administrative duties,L0N"M or ministerial acts,L0N#M or an act Chich the laC specially enEoins as a
duty resulting from the office,L0N3M including: V filing papersL0N4M V recording orders properly
endorsed Ay the Eudge for entry of recordL0N.M V searching records in the cler54s custodyL0NM V
processing affidavits to proceed in forma pauperisL0N7M
- 33-
1
2
L0N"M *tate e1 rel) DeAlasio v) Bac5son, ##7 ?) -a) #%, 7%7 *)()#d 33 (#%""') L0N#M
$4Connor v) 0irst Court of <ppeals, &37 *)?)#d 94 (/e1) "99#') 9andamus to compel ministerial
duty to receive, file, and forCard application for Crit of haAeas corpus) Benson v) District Cler5, 33"
*)?)3d 43" (/e1) Crim) <pp) #%""') L0N3M 8umphrey v) 9auIy, ".. ?) -a) &9, "&" *)()#d 3#9
("97"') L0N4M Burnham v) Cler5 of 0irst Dist) Court of (sse1, 3.# 9ass) 4, ## N)()#d "9%
("97'= Benson v) District Cler5, 33" *)?)3d 43" (/e1) Crim) <pp) #%""') L0N.M 8umphrey v)
9auIy, ".. ?) -a) &9, "&" *)()#d 3#9 ("97"') L0NM *tate v) *coC, 93 9inn) "", "%% N)?) 3&#
("9%4')
/he +9C4s oCn 6isa @ardner failed to file in and failed to transmit int he +$< in C+"#2"##
(see "9%" and #337, "3&3' Coughlin4s timely notice of appeal on !#&!"# as to the !#&!"#
conviction for criminal trespass in +9C "" C+ #4%.)
< deputy cler5 of court is liaAle to the cler5 for Crongful acts done under the color of the
deputy cler54s office Chich result in the principal cler5 Aeing held responsiAle in damages)L0N"M <
deputy cler5 may also Ae held personally liaAle to a third person for an act of misfeasance or some
positive Crongful act under color of the deputed authority)L0N#M < deputy court cler5 may Ae suAEect
to criminal liaAility Ay statute for specified Crongful acts in office)L0N3M L0N"M 9oore v) 9cGinley,
% 7oCa 37, "4 N)?) 7& ("&&3') L0N#M 9ills v) @anucheau, 4" *o) #d 3" (6a) Ct) <pp) 4th Cir)
"9&#') L0N3M 6arson v) *tate, .4 ;)#d 3. (<las5a "977')
-7) 6iaAilities and +emedies <) 6iaAility for Negligence or 9isconduct ") 7n @eneral /opic
*ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K ..) @enerally ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey
NumAer Digest, Cler5s of Courts 57# to 7. <s a puAlic administrative officerL0N"M or ministerial
officer, a court cler5 is ansCeraAle for any act of negligence or misconduct in office resulting in an
inEury to the complaining party,L0N#M or a violation of applicaAle standards of professional conduct,
L0N3M in the aAsence of immunity)L0N4M /o render the cler5 of a court and the sureties on the cler54s
official Aond liaAle for the cler54s misfeasance, the complaining party must shoC a duty on the part of
the cler5,L0N.M a Areach of the duty, and conse3uent damage to the complainant,L0NM meeting the
normal standards of direct and pro1imate cause)L0N7M ;ractice /ip: 7n a professional disciplinary
proceeding resulting in the censure of a court cler5, the cler54s status as an attorney raised the
applicaAle standards of performance higher than otherCise might apply to a nonattorney holding the
position)L0N&M Caution: 9onetary sanctions against a county circuit court cler5 Cere Carranted
Chere evidence shoCed that the cler5 misunderstood the nature and severity of the serious mista5es
that repeatedly occurred in the cler54s offices including the failure to provide notice of the entry of
civil orders and Eudgments to parties)L0N9M < court cler5 may Ae suAEect to criminal liaAility for
misconduct or Crongful acts on the course of his or her duties and in violation of criminal statutes)
L0N"%M L0N"M (1 parte City of /us5egee, 93# *o) #d &9. (<la) #%%.') L0N#M *amuel v) 9ichaud, 9&%
0) *upp) "3&" (D) 7daho "99', aff4d, "#9 0)3d "#7 (9th Cir) "997'= 9acGerron v) 9acGerron, .7"
<)#d &"% (9e) "99%') L0N3M 7n re Dunn, #%"" ?6 "3"39.3 (9iss) #%""' (monetary sanctions'= 7n re
Chepiga, .7 <)D)3d "%&9, && N)>)*)#d 4" (3d Dep4t #%%&' (censure') L0N4M KK .& to %) L0N.M
8arms v) Bierman, 3" 7ll) <pp) 3d #.%, #9 7ll) Dec) 79", &3 N)()#d #% (3d Dist) #%%.' (cler5 had
no duty to convey vacating order to sheriff4s office'= BoAo v) *tate, 34 9d) 7%, 97 <)#d "37"
("997') L0NM 7nstallment ;lan, 7nc) v) Bustice, #%9 *o) #d & (6a) Ct) <pp) 4th Cir) "9&', cert)
denied= 6oper v) <ustin, "979 $G &4, .9 ;)#d .44 ($5la) "979') L0N7M Coo5 v) City of /ope5a, #3#
Gan) 334, .4 ;)#d 9.3, 34 <)6)+)4th ""7# ("9&#'= ;raggastis v) Clac5amas County, 3%. $r) 4"9,
7.# ;)#d 3%# ("9&&'= CommonCealth 0ederal *av) and 6oan <ss4n v) ;ettit, "37 ;a) CommC) .#3,
.& <)#d "%#" ("99"') L0N&M 7n re Chepiga, .7 <)D)3d "%&9, && N)>)*)#d 4" (3d Dep4t #%%&')
L0N9M 7n re Dunn, #%"" ?6 "3"39.3 (9iss) #%""') L0N"%M *tate v) @reene, "7" @a) <pp) 3#9, 3#%
- 34-
1
2
*)()#d "&3 ("9&4' (falsifying puAlic records as violation of oath of puAlic officer'= BroCn v) *tate,
&4 N)()#d .#9 (7nd) Ct) <pp) "997' (violation of ghost employment statute')
77) Contempt of Court 0) -iolation of $rders <s Contempt 3) (ffect of (rror or 7nvalidity a) 7n
@eneral /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K "#&) -oid or invalid orders ?est4s Gey
NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Contempt 5#%, #" <)6)+) 6iArary +ight to punish for
contempt for failure to oAey court order or decree either Aeyond poCer or Eurisdiction of court or
merely erroneous, "# <)6)+) #d "%.9 ?hile a court order that is merely erroneous must Ae oAeyed,
L0N"M a court cannot punish as contempt a violation of an order Aeyond the court4s poCer or
Eurisdiction)L0N#M 7t is not contempt to disoAey a void order,L0N3M as court orders that are
transparently invalid or patently frivolous need not Ae oAeyed)L0N4M /he fact that an order goes
Aeyond the findings on Chich, alone, it is Aased constitutes an e1cuse in contempt proceedings Aased
on its violation)L0N.M < charge of voidness of the allegedly violated order, as distinguished from a
mere charge of erroneousness, may Ae raised in a collateral proceeding for contempt)L0NM 6ac5 of
Eurisdiction or poCer of the court to ma5e the order allegedly violated may Ae raised on appeal from a
Eudgment of conviction for contempt)L0N7M <n aAsence of Eurisdiction may Ae shoCn not only Chere
the court rendering the Eudgment or order on Chich the contempt proceeding is Aased has no
Eurisdiction of the 5ind or class of action, as Chere a court of laC attempts to render a decree of
specific performance, or of the suAEect matter or res or the parties involved in the particular suit or
action, Aut also Chere the court attempts to ma5e a particular order that transcends its poCer or
authority, as Chere a court in an action on a money demand attempts to commit the defendant to
prison)L0N&M ;ractice @uide: ;rohiAition is proper to restrain a Eudge from punishing for contempt,
Chere the Eudge is proceeding Aeyond the court4s Eurisdiction or is proceeding erroneously Cithin its
Eurisdiction)L0N9M C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: -oidness of a court order is an aAsolute
defense to a contempt charge) *heCarega v) >egIaC, 947 <)#d 47 (D)C) #%%&') <n order entered
Cithout either suAEect matter Eurisdiction or Eurisdiction over the parties is void and cannot provide
the Aasis for a finding of contempt) Gonvalin5a v) Chattanooga28amilton County 8osp) <uthority,
#49 *)?)3d 34 (/enn) #%%&') <n order is not rendered void or unlaCful Ay Aeing erroneous or
suAEect to reversal on appeal and may provide Aasis for contempt= rather, erroneous orders must Ae
folloCed until they are reversed) Gonvalin5a v) Chattanooga28amilton County 8osp) <uthority, #49
*)?)3d 34 (/enn) #%%&') DisoAedience of, or resistance to a void order, Eudgment, or decree is not
contempt) *asson v) *henhar, #7 -a) "", 7 *)()#d ... (#%%&') 7n general, a court order that is
merely erroneous must Ae oAeyed and may not Ae collaterally attac5ed in a contempt proceeding= a
void order, hoCever, may Ae attac5ed at any time) 7n re (states of *maldino, "." ?ash) <pp) 3.,
#"# ;)3d .79 (Div) " #%%9') L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M K "#7) L0N#M (1 parte @eorge, 37"
:)*) 7#, &3 *) Ct) "7&, 9 6) (d) #d "33 ("9#'= +iccard v) ;rudential 7ns) Co), 3%7 0)3d "#77, .3 0ed)
+) *erv) 3d "4% (""th Cir) #%%#'= ;hoeni1 NeCspapers, 7nc) v) *uperior Court 7n and 0or 9aricopa
County, "%" <riI) #.7, 4"& ;)#d .94 ("9'= 7n re Berry, & Cal) #d "37, . Cal) +ptr) #73, 43 ;)#d
#73 ("9&'= ;eople v) ;routy, ## 7ll) #"&, "%4 N)() 3&7 ("9"4'= <llen v) 7oCa Dist) Court for ;ol5
County, .&# N)?)#d .% (7oCa "99&'= *ave29or Drugs, Bethesda, 7nc) v) :pEohn Co), ##. 9d) "&7,
"7% <)#d ##3 ("9"'= 9c8enry v) *tate, 9" 9iss) .#, 44 *o) &3" ("9%7'= Del ;apa v) *teffen, ""#
Nev) 39, 9". ;)#d #4. ("99'= *pector v) <llen, #&" N)>) #.", ## N)()#d 3% ("939'= Com) v) +yan,
4.9 ;a) "4&, 3#7 <)#d 3." ("974'= Doe v) Board of ;rofessional +esponsiAility of *upreme Court of
/ennessee, "%4 *)?)3d 4. (/enn) #%%3'= +oAertson v) Com), "&" -a) .#%, #. *)()#d 3.#, "4
<)6)+) 9 ("943'= *tate v) BreaIeale, "44 ?ash) #d &#9, 3" ;)3d "".. (#%%"'= *tate v) +am2say, "
?is) #d ".4, ""4 N)?)#d ""& ("9#') L0N3M (lysium, 7nc) v) *uperior Court for 6os <ngeles County,
# Cal) <pp) #d 73, 7# Cal) +ptr) 3.. (#d Dist) "9&'= 8ernreich v) Juinn, 3.% 9o) 77%, "&
- 35-
1
2
*)?)#d "%.4 ("943'= 7n re @uardianship of BadCisia5, 4 $hio *t) 3d "7, .93 N)()#d "379 ("99#')
<s to partially void orders, see K "#9) L0N4M 7n re Nova5, 93# 0)#d "397, #% 0ed) +) *erv) 3d "% (""th
Cir) "99"') /he transparently invalid e1ception to the collateral2Aar doctrine, Aarring a party from
challenging a district court order Ay violating it, is only availaAle to a party Cho has either made a
good faith effort to oAtain emergency relief from the appellate court or Cho shoCs compelling
circumstances e1cusing the decision not to see5 some 5ind of emergency relief) 7n re Criminal
Contempt ;roceedings <gainst @erald CraCford, 9ichael ?arren, 3#9 0)3d "3", .. 0ed) +) *erv) 3d
3% (#d Cir) #%%3') L0N.M @ulic5 v) 8amilton, #93 7ll) "#, "#7 N)() 3&3, 9 <)6)+) "#9 ("9#%')
L0NM ;hoeni1 NeCspapers, 7nc) v) *uperior Court 7n and 0or 9aricopa County, "%" <riI) #.7, 4"&
;)#d .94 ("9' (prohiAition'= 9ayer v) 9ayer, 3 Del) Ch) 4.7, "3# <)#d "7 ("9.7'= 9c8enry v)
*tate, 9" 9iss) .#, 44 *o) &3" ("9%7'= *tate v) 6eC, #. ?ash) #d &.4, "7# ;)#d #&9 ("94') <s to
erroneous orders, see K "#7) L0N7M 7n re Gramer, 7. N)?)#d 7.3 (N)D) "9.') L0N&M Brougham v)
$ceanic *team Navigation Co), #%. 0) &.7 (C)C)<) #d Cir) "9"3'= Brady v) *uperior Court 7n and 0or
*an 9ateo County, #%% Cal) <pp) #d 9, "9 Cal) +ptr) #4# ("st Dist) "9#'= +udd v) +udd, "&4 Gy)
4%%, #"4 *)?) 79" ("9"9') L0N9M Getscher v) *uperior Court, 9 Cal) <pp) 3d %", && Cal) +ptr) 3.7
(.th Dist) "97%'= 8err v) 8umphrey, #77 Gy) 4#", "# *)?)#d &%9, "#" <)6)+) 9.4 ("939') T #%"#
/homson +euters) 33234B T #%"# /homson +euters!+7<) No Claim to $rig) :)*) @ovt) ?or5s) <ll
rights reserved) <9B:+ C$N/(9;/ K "#&
77) Contempt of Court 0) -iolation of $rders <s Contempt 4) (ffect of $ther Circumstances
/opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K "37) 7ndefiniteness or vagueness of order ?est4s Gey
NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Contempt 5#%, #", #3 Before a person may Ae held in
contempt for violating a court order, the order should inform the person in definite terms as to the
duties thereAy imposed,L0N"M and the mandate alleged to Ae violated must Ae clearly e1pressed rather
than implied)L0N#M Contempt may only Ae estaAlished if the order allegedly violated is clear and
unamAiguousL0N3M or, as some courts have said, definite and specific)L0N4M ;unishment for
contempt can only rest on a clear, intentional violation of a specific, narroCly draCn order=
specificity is an essential prere3uisite of a contempt citation)L0N.M 7n determining Chether an order is
sufficiently specific to support a conviction for contempt, the court should consider the entire
Aac5ground Aehind the order, including the conduct the order Cas meant to enEoin or secure, the
interests that it Cas trying to protect, the manner in Chich it Cas trying to protect them, and any past
violations and Carnings)L0NM 7n assessing if an order contains the re3uisite specificity to support a
finding of criminal contempt for its violation, the court loo5s at the defendant4s oCn Aehavior and not
to some hypothetical situation)L0N7M ?hether an order is clear enough to support a criminal contempt
conviction depends on the conte1t in Chich it is issued and the audience to Chich it is addressed)
L0N&M C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: <Asence of Critten record of district court4s telephone
directive to attorney, to secure doctor4s affidavit setting forth health reasons Chy client could not Ae
present in court, deprived such order of definiteness re3uired to support suAse3uent adEudication of
criminal contempt against attorney for failing to comply Cith order) :)*) v) Cooper, 3.3 0)3d "" (#d
Cir) #%%3') Before a person may Ae held in contempt for violating a court order, the order should
inform him in definite terms as to the duties thereAy imposed upon him, and the command must
therefore Ae e1press rather than implied, indeed, the very nature of the proceeding in either civil or
criminal contempt for an alleged disoAedience of a court order re3uires that the language in the
commands Ae clear and certain) 0arris v) 0arris, #&. @a) 33", 7 *)()#d #"# (#%%9') Before a person
may Ae held in contempt for violating a court order, the order should inform him in definite terms as
to the duties thereAy imposed upon him) @ary v) @oCins, #&3 @a) 433, .& *)()#d .7. (#%%&') L(ND
$0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M 7n re ?ee5s, .7% 0)#d #44 (&th Cir) "97&'= Berry v) 9idtoCn *ervice
- 36-
1
2
Corporation, "%4 0)#d "%7, "## <)6)+) "34" (C)C)<) #d Cir) "939'= 7vy v) Geith, 3." <r5) #9, 9#
*)?)3d 7" (#%%#'= *ellman v) *ellman, #3& 9d) "., #%9 <)#d " ("9.'= Com) v) @aston, 4% ;a)
3&., 333 <)#d 779 ("97.'= (1 parte ;adron, .. *)?)#d 9#", "%% <)6)+)3d &&% (/e1) "97&') 7t Cas
error to find defendant in contempt for removing a copy of a temporary restraining order and
padloc5s from premises descriAed as a puAlic nuisance Chere the temporary restraining order did not
specifically forAid defendant from doing those acts) *tate e1 rel) Zimmerman v) 9ason, .4 N)C) <pp)
".., #&# *)()#d ."& ("9&"') L0N#M Berry v) 9idtoCn *ervice Corporation, "%4 0)#d "%7, "## <)6)+)
"34" (C)C)<) #d Cir) "939'= 7vy v) Geith, 3." <r5) #9, 9# *)?)3d 7" (#%%#''= *tate e1 rel) ;orter v)
;orter, 33 <)D)#d &7, 3%7 N)>)*)#d &# (4th Dep4t "99') L0N3M <ccu*oft Corp) v) ;alo, #37 0)3d
3" ("st Cir) #%%"'= Cooper v) /e1aco, 7nc), 9" 0)#d 7" (.th Cir) "99#'= +iccard v) ;rudential 7ns) Co),
3%7 0)3d "#77, .3 0ed) +) *erv) 3d "4% (""th Cir) #%%#'= :)*) v) Bernardine, #37 0)3d "#79 (""th
Cir) #%%"'= Budge +otenAerg (ducational Center, 7nc) v) Commissioner of the Dept) of 9ental
+etardation, 4#4 9ass) 43%, 77 N)()#d "#7 ("997') < se3uestration order Cas sufficiently specific to
support a conviction of criminal contempt Ay a Citness Cho sent his secretary to ta5e notes and copy
daily transcripts= the Citness Cas a sophisticated Ausinessman Cho had Aeen engaged in series of
hotly contested cases defending himself and his son from charges of fraudulent activity in million2
dollar Ausiness deals, the conduct enEoined Cas simple, the interest in preventing the possiAility of
Citness contamination Cas clear, and the trial court reasonaAly determined that the Citness Cas not
crediAle in his assertion that he did not understand the scope of the order) :)*) v) 9c9ahon, "%4 0)3d
3&, 4 0ed) +) (vid) *erv) 3&" (4th Cir) "997') < claim for civil contempt must fall if the order that
Cas disoAeyed is suAse3uently reversed Ay the issuing court or an appellate court, or if its issuance
e1ceeded the poCer of the issuing court) +eliance 7ns) Co) v) 9ast Const) Co), &4 0)3d 37#, 34 0ed)
+) *erv) 3d 94# ("%th Cir) "99') L0N4M :)*) v) Cutler, .& 0)3d &#. (#d Cir) "99.'= @race v) Center for
<uto *afety, 7# 0)3d "#3, "99 0(D <pp) %%%&; (th Cir) "99'= *talA v) *talA, "7" -t) 3%, 7&
<)#d "#9 (#%%%') L0N.M 7n re +uma5er, 4 0)#d &7% (.th Cir) "9&%'= ?ilson v) *uperior Court, "94
Cal) <pp) 3d "#.9, #4% Cal) +ptr) "3" (th Dist) "9&7') L0NM :)*) v) 9c9ahon, "%4 0)3d 3&, 4
0ed) +) (vid) *erv) 3&" (4th Cir) "997') L0N7M :)*) v) 9c9ahon, "%4 0)3d 3&, 4 0ed) +) (vid)
*erv) 3&" (4th Cir) "997') L0N&M :)*) v) +apone, "3" 0)3d "&& (D)C) Cir) "997')
<s to Eudges Chom continually flaunt their Cillfully e1ceeding the Eurisdiction accorded them
(and the duty of other Eudges to report them in light of NCBC +ule #)".': <Asolute immunity is
generally reserved for Eudges performing Eudicial acts Cithin their Eurisdiction, prosecutors
performing acts intimately associated Cith the Eudicial phase of the criminal process, and 3uasi2
Eudicial agency officials Chose duties are comparaAle to those of Eudges or prosecutors Chen
ade3uate procedural safeguards e1ist)BrasCell v) 8ayCood +egional 9edical Center, 3.# 0) *upp) #d
39 (?)D) N)C) #%%.')
Budge is aAsolutely immune from damages for actions ta5en in a Eudicial capacity unless the
Eudge has acted in the clear aAsence of all Eurisdiction) *tiggle v) /amAurini, 47 0) *upp) #d "&3
(D)+)7) #%%') *tate court Eudge)
<n act is done in the Dclear aAsence of all Eurisdiction,D for Eudicial immunity purposes, if the
matter upon Chich the Eudge acts is clearly outside the suAEect2matter Eurisdiction of the court over
Chich the Eudge presides) 7reland v) /unis, ""3 0)3d "43., "997 0(D <pp) %".; (th Cir) "997')
amily court Eudge did not commit a good faith legal error, Aut acted in Aad faith in erroneously
ruling on issue of proper venue!forum for e12Cife4s re3uest for change of custody, and therefore Eudge
Cas suAEect to the Eurisdiction of Budicial Conduct Commission for discipline= Eudge failed to provide
e12husAand even the most Aasic elements of procedural due process, Eudge thCarted e12husAand4s
every attempt to present evidence in support of his position, Eudge acted as Eudge of a family court
- 37-
1
2
that had no Eurisdiction over the matter that had Aeen presented to Eudge through an unusual and
e1traordinary procedure, and Chen e12husAand4s counsel Could not Ae Aullied into going along Cith
Eudge4s attempts to circumvent procedures and the laC, Eudge e1cluded counsel and dealt directly Cith
e12husAand, threatening him Cith the loss of custody of his other child unless he accepted Eudge4s
DagreedD order) :)*)C)<) Const)<mend) "4= *up)Ct)+ules, +ule 4)%#%(#') @ormley v) Budicial
Conduct Commission, 33# *)?)3d 7"7 (Gy) #%"%')
/he doctrine of Eudicial immunity is so e1pansive that it is overcome only Chen: ("' the
action is nonEudicial, that is, not ta5en in the Eudge4s Eudicial capacity, or (#' the action, although
Eudicial in nature, is performed in the complete aAsence of any Eurisdiction) 9iller v) County of
Nassau, 47 0) *upp) #d 3%& (()D) N)>) #%%') Budge does not lose Eudicial immunity Aecause an
action is erroneous, malicious, in e1cess of authority, or disregardful of elementary principles of
procedural due process, as long as the Eudge had Eurisdiction over the suAEect matter Aefore him= a
Eudge Cill loose the cloa5 of immunity only Chen he conducts proceedings over Chich he lac5s any
semAlance of suAEect matter Eurisdiction) *tiggle v) /amAurini, 47 0) *upp) #d "&3 (D)+)7) #%%')
9ore and more there is a 3uestion as to Chether the +BC4s "#!#%!"# D<dministrative $rder
#%"#2%" 7n the 9atter of Zachary CoughlinD and the verAatim copying thereof Ay the +9C in a
"!"!"3 D<dministrative $rder #%"32%"D are DEudicial actsD, or rather, Dadministrative actsD for Chich
such a AraIen and flagrant overstepping of Eurisdiction Cill not Ae accorded 3uite the level of
immunity DEudicial actsD typically are) NoC the +BC has transmogrified such D<dministrative $rderD
in a criminal case numAer +C+#%"#2%7#7.)
-777) 6iaAilities <) Civil 6iaAility #) 6iaAility for ;articular /ypes of Conduct a) 7n @eneral=
Conduct ?ithin *cope of +ule of <Asolute Budicial 7mmunity /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle
+eferences K 7%) NonEudicial acts ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budges
53., 3 Budges may Ae e1posed to liaAility for nonEudicial actsL0N"M since they generally have no
Eudicial immunity for their administrative, legislative, or e1ecutive functions)L0N#M Budges acting in
an administrative capacity do not have aAsolute immunity from suits for damages=L 0N3M
administrative decisions, even though essential to the functioning of the court, have not Aeen
regarded as Eudicial acts)L0N4M $Aservation: /he e1ception from Eudicial immunity for legislative and
e1ecutive acts has sometimes Aeen referred to as the Ddiscretionary function e1ception)DL0N.M L0N"M
9ireles v) ?aco, .%# :)*) 9, ""# *) Ct) #&, "" 6) (d) #d 9 ("99"'= 9alina v) @onIales, 994 0)#d
""#" (.th Cir) "993'= <rchie v) 6anier, 9. 0)3d 43&, "99 0(D <pp) %#97; (th Cir) "99'= Bohn v)
Barron, &97 0)#d "3&7, " 0ed) +) *erv) 3d "3. (7th Cir) "99%'= Croo5s v) 9aynard, 9"3 0)#d 99
(9th Cir) "99%'= BNC Companies v) $llason, "37 B)+) 4 (D) <riI) "99"', aff4d, 99 0)#d "##. (9th
Cir) "993'= 9eyer v) 0oti, 7#% 0) *upp) "#34 (()D) 6a) "9&9'= 8ammond v) Creative 0inancial
;lanning $rganiIation, 7nc), &%% 0) *upp) "#44 (()D) ;a) "99#'= +umfola v) 9urovich, &"# 0) *upp)
.9 (?)D) ;a) "99#'= Cintron +odrigueI v) ;agan Nieves, 73 0) *upp) 4"" (D);)+) "99%'=
Galmanson v) 6oc5ett, &4& *o) #d 374 (0la) Dist) Ct) <pp) .th Dist) #%%3') L0N#M Croo5s v) 9aynard,
9"3 0)#d 99 (9th Cir) "99%') <9B:+ B:D@(* K 7% ;age " 4 <m) Bur) #d Budges K 7% T #%"#
/homson +euters) No Claim to $rig) :* @ov) ?or5s) L0N3M 0orrester v) ?hite, 4&4 :)*) #"9, "%& *)
Ct) .3&, 9& 6) (d) #d ... ("9&&'= 9umford v) ZieAa, 7&& 0) *upp) 9&7 (N)D) $hio "99#', Eudgment
rev4d on other grounds, 4 0)3d 4#9 (th Cir) "993') L0N4M <ntoine v) Byers N <nderson, 7nc), .%&
:)*) 4#9, ""3 *) Ct) #"7, "#4 6) (d) #d 39" ("993'= 0orrester v) ?hite, 4&4 :)*) #"9, "%& *) Ct)
.3&, 9& 6) (d) #d ... ("9&&') <s to the general rule of nonliaAility for damages, see K ") <s to
Eudicial acts protected Ay the rule of nonliaAility for damages, see K 7) L0N.M Goelln v) Ne1us
+esidential /reatment 0acility, 494 N)?)#d 9"4 (9inn) Ct) <pp) "993')
- 38-
1
2
-777) 6iaAilities <) Civil 6iaAility 3) (ffect of Burisdiction or 6ac5 /hereof /opic *ummary
Correlation /aAle +eferences K 74) @enerally ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest,
Budges 53., 3 < necessary in3uiry in determining Chether Eudges are immune from suit for money
damages is Chether, at the time a challenged action Cas ta5en, there Cas Eurisdiction over the suAEect
matterL0N"M and the parties)L0N#M Budges generally are not suAEect to liaAility in civil actions for
their Eudicial acts unless they have acted in the clear aAsence of all Eurisdiction)L0N3M Courts have
reasoned that it is necessary to imAue the doctrine of Eudicial immunity Cith such Aroad scope in
order to preserve the integrity of the Eudicial system and ensure that Eudges render decisions Cithout
fear of personal conse3uences, even though, in some circumstances, it may create unfairness to
litigants)L0N4M <lthough some cases have suggested that this means that a Eudge must have had Aoth
suAEect matter and personal Eurisdiction Chile engaging in the offending conduct, for immunity to
apply,L0N.M it is generally held that a Eudge is entitled to immunity even if there is no personal
Eurisdiction over the complaining party)L0NM 7n some Eurisdictions, case laC suggests a Eudge Cho
has suAEect2matter Eurisdiction and a coloraAle claim of personal Eurisdiction is immune from liaAility
for Eudicial acts,L0N7M Chile in others it has Aeen emphasiIed that immunity has never Aeen denied
Aecause of a lac5 of personal Eurisdiction)L0N&M < clear aAsence of all Eurisdiction generally is held to
mean a clear lac5 of suAEect2matter Eurisdiction,L0N9M and Eudicial immunity is a defense so long as a
Eudge4s ultimate acts are Eudicial actions ta5en Cithin the court4s suAEect2matter Eurisdiction)L0N"%M
/his suAEect2matter Eurisdiction may Ae provided Ay a state constitution giving the courts in 3uestion
original Eurisdiction over all civil mattersL0N""M or, in the conte1t of a Aan5ruptcy court proceeding,
Ay the fact that the matter is arguaAly Cithin the Aroad scope of matters Chich ordinarily come Aefore
the Aan5ruptcy courts)L0N"#M <9B:+ B:D@(* K 74 ;age " 4 <m) Bur) #d Budges K 74 Budges are
entitled to aAsolute Eudicial immunity from damages under K "9&3 for those acts ta5en Chile they are
acting in their Eudicial capacity unless they acted in clear aAsence of all Eurisdiction= a Eudge does not
act in the clear aAsence of all Eurisdiction Chen he acts erroneously, maliciously, or in e1cess of his
authority, Aut instead, only Chen he acts Cithout suAEect2 matter Eurisdiction) 4# :)*)C)<) K "9&3)
9cCall v) 9ontgomery 8ousing <uthority, &%9 0) *upp) #d "3"4 (9)D) <la) #%""') $nly Chen he
has acted in the clear aAsence of all Eurisdiction Cill a Eudge Ae suAEect to liaAility) ?althour v) Child
and >outh *ervices, 7#& 0) *upp) #d #& (()D) ;a) #%"%') L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M 7n re
6una, ".# B)+) "" (Ban5r) D) 9ass) "993'= *mithson v) +ay, 4#7 0) *upp) "" (()D) /enn) "97')
L0N#M *mithson v) +ay, 4#7 0) *upp) "" (()D) /enn) "97') L0N3M 7n re 6una, ".# B)+) "" (Ban5r) D)
9ass) "993'= *tump v) *par5man, 43. :)*) 349, 9& *) Ct) "%99, .. 6) (d) #d 33" ("97&'= Ballard v)
?all, 4"3 0)3d ."% (.th Cir) #%%.'= Gillinger v) Bohnson, 3&9 0)3d 7. (7th Cir) #%%4'= ?iggins v)
8ess, .3" 0)#d 9#% (&th Cir) "97'= NeC <las5a Development Corp) v) @uetschoC, &9 0)#d "#9&
(9th Cir) "9&9'= BNC Companies v) $llason, "37 B)+) 4 (D) <riI) "99"', aff4d, 99 0)#d "##. (9th
Cir) "993'= Cintron +odrigueI v) ;agan Nieves, 73 0) *upp) 4"" (D);)+) "99%'= 8oCard v) Drap5in,
### Cal) <pp) 3d &43, #7" Cal) +ptr) &93 (#d Dist) "99%'= ;ar5er v) *tate, 9# 9d) <pp) .4%, %9 <)#d
347 ("99#', Eudgment aff4d, 337 9d) #7", .3 <)#d 43 ("99.'= Carey v) Dostert, "&. ?) -a) #47,
4% *)()#d 7& ("99"') L0N4M Carey v) Dostert, "&. ?) -a) #47, 4% *)()#d 7& ("99"') L0N.M
8op5ins v) 7N< :nderCriters 7ns) Co), 44 $hio <pp) 3d "&, .4# N)()#d 79 (4th Dist) ;ic5aCay
County "9&&') L0NM NeC <las5a Development Corp) v) @uetschoC, &9 0)#d "#9& (9th Cir) "9&9')
L0N7M <lmon v) Battles, .4" *o) #d ."9 (<la) "9&9') L0N&M ;ar5er v) *tate, 9# 9d) <pp) .4%, %9
<)#d 347 ("99#', Eudgment aff4d, 337 9d) #7", .3 <)#d 43 ("99.') L0N9M BNC Companies v)
$llason, "37 B)+) 4 (D) <riI) "99"', aff4d, 99 0)#d "##. (9th Cir) "993'= ;ar5er v) *tate, 9# 9d)
<pp) .4%, %9 <)#d 347 ("99#', Eudgment aff4d, 337 9d) #7", .3 <)#d 43 ("99.'= Bailey v) :tah
*tate Bar, &4 ;)#d "#7& (:tah "993') L0N"%M 9alina v) @onIales, 994 0)#d ""#" (.th Cir) "993'=
- 39-
1
2
Bohn v) Barron, &97 0)#d "3&7, " 0ed) +) *erv) 3d "3. (7th Cir) "99%'= NeC <las5a Development
Corp) v) @uetschoC, &9 0)#d "#9& (9th Cir) "9&9') L0N""M 9alina v) @onIales, 994 0)#d ""#" (.th
Cir) "993'= Bohn v) Barron, &97 0)#d "3&7, " 0ed) +) *erv) 3d "3. (7th Cir) "99%') L0N"#M BNC
Companies v) $llason, "37 B)+) 4 (D) <riI) "99"', aff4d, 99 0)#d "##. (9th Cir) "993')
-777) 6iaAilities <) Civil 6iaAility 3) (ffect of Burisdiction or 6ac5 /hereof /opic *ummary
Correlation /aAle +eferences K 7) <cts under invalid laC or in e1cess of Eurisdiction ?est4s Gey
NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budges 53., 3 /he scope of Eudicial Eurisdiction
generally is Aroadly construed,L0N"M such that Eudges Cho possess Eurisdiction are not deprived of
aAsolute immunity Ay the mere fact that they act upon a void or invalid laC,L0N#M and aAsolute
immunity Cill apply to Eudges acting in the e1ercise of their Eudicial functions even if the acts are in
e1cess of their Eurisdiction or authority)L 0N3M < distinction must Ae oAserved AetCeen acts Chich are
merely in e1cess of Eurisdiction and those involving a clear aAsence of all Eurisdiction over the suAEect
matter)L0N4M ?here there is clearly no Eurisdiction over the suAEect matter, any authority e1ercised is
usurped authority, and no e1cuse is permissiAle if the Eudge 5noCs of his or her lac5 of authority)
L 0N.M $Aservation: < Eudge pro tem Cho has Eurisdiction to hear a case to its conclusion once he or
she Aegins hearing evidence does not act in the clear aAsence of all Eurisdiction in issuing a search
CarrantL 0NM or in refusing to issue a peace Aond and a Carrant for the arrest of one person, Chile
issuing a Carrant for another4s arrest,L0N7M even though the Eudicial term has e1pired)L0N&M L0N"M 7n
re 6una, ".# B)+) "" (Ban5r) D) 9ass) "993') L0N#M Carey v) Dostert, "&. ?) -a) #47, 4% *)()#d
7& ("99"') L0N3M 7n re 6una, ".# B)+) "" (Ban5r) D) 9ass) "993'= 9ireles v) ?aco, .%# :)*) 9, ""#
*) Ct) #&, "" 6) (d) #d 9 ("99"'= Broo5ings v) Clun5, 3&9 0)3d "4, #%%4 0(D <pp) %399; (th
Cir) #%%4'= Derringer v) Chapel, 9& 0ed) <pp1) 7#& ("%th Cir) #%%4'= 4 <m) Bur) #d Budges K 7 ;age
v) @rady, 7&& 0) *upp) "#%7 (N)D) @a) "99#'= *tephens v) 8erring, &#7 0) *upp) 3.9 (()D) -a) "993'=
6avit v) *uperior Court 7n and 0or County of 9aricopa, "73 <riI) 9, &39 ;)#d ""4" (Ct) <pp) Div) "
"99#'= 8oCard v) Drap5in, ### Cal) <pp) 3d &43, #7" Cal) +ptr) &93 (#d Dist) "99%'= -inson v)
;rather, &79 *o) #d "%.3 (9iss) Ct) <pp) #%%4'= 6ong v) Cross +eporting *ervice, 7nc), "%3 *)?)3d
#49 (9o) Ct) <pp) ?)D) #%%3', reh4g and!or transfer denied, (<pr) ", #%%3' and transfer denied, (9ay
#7, #%%3' and cert) denied, .4% :)*) 9&3, "#4 *) Ct) 47", ".7 6) (d) #d 374 (#%%3'= -irtu Bouti3ue,
7nc) v) BoA4s 6ane Candle *hop, 7nc), ." <)D)#d &"3, 3&% N)>)*)#d #3 (#d Dep4t "97'= 8op5ins v)
7N< :nderCriters 7ns) Co), 44 $hio <pp) 3d "&, .4# N)()#d 79 (4th Dist) ;ic5aCay County "9&&'=
Carey v) Dostert, "&. ?) -a) #47, 4% *)()#d 7& ("99"') L0N4M DellenAach v) 6etsinger, &&9 0)#d
7.. (7th Cir) "9&9'= Derringer v) Chapel, 9& 0ed) <pp1) 7#& ("%th Cir) #%%4'= ;ar5er v) *tate, 9# 9d)
<pp) .4%, %9 <)#d 347 ("99#', Eudgment aff4d, 337 9d) #7", .3 <)#d 43 ("99.'= 8oCe v) Brouse,
4#7 *)?)#d 47 (9o) "9&') L0N.M DellenAach v) 6etsinger, &&9 0)#d 7.. (7th Cir) "9&9') L0NM
8upp v) 8ill, .7 N)()#d "3#% (7nd) Ct) <pp) "st Dist) "99"') L0N7M 9oore v) /aylor, .4" *o) #d 37&,
.3 (d) 6aC +ep) 34& (6a) Ct) <pp) #d Cir) "9&9') L0N&M 8upp v) 8ill, .7 N)()#d "3#% (7nd) Ct)
<pp) "st Dist) "99"'= 9oore v) /aylor, .4" *o) #d 37&, .3 (d) 6aC +ep) 34& (6a) Ct) <pp) #d Cir)
"9&9')
7U) Dis3ualification to <ct in ;articular Case <) 7n @eneral /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle
+eferences K &") *tatutes governing dis3ualification ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer
Digest, Budges 539, 4% <)6)+) 6iArary Dis3ualification of Eudge under #& :)*)C)<) K 4..(A'(4',
providing for dis3ualification Chere Eudge has financial or other interest in proceeding, "3 <)6)+)
0ed) .7. /he dis3ualification of trial Eudges is an aspect of the Eudicial system that is suAEect to
reasonaAle legislative regulation,L0N"M although such regulations are suAEect to constitutional
re3uirements Cith respect to uniformity and impartiality of operation)L0N#M *tatutes governing
- 40-
1
2
dis3ualification of Eudges are meant to Ae self enforcing)L0N3M ;ractice @uide: NeC statutory
dis3ualification provisions Cill not Ae applied retroactively)L0N4M /he purpose of a Eudicial recusal
statute re3uiring a Eudge to dis3ualify himself or herself Chen the Eudge4s impartiality might
reasonaAly Ae 3uestioned is to promote puAlic confidence in the integrity of the Eudicial process)
L0N.M 8oCever, a dis3ualification statute is not intended as an instrument to secure delays or
postponement of trialL0NM and should not Ae employed to produce inconvenience and aAsurdity)
L0N7M L0N"M 7ndustrial 7ndemnity Co) v) *uperior Court, #"4 Cal) <pp) 3d #.9, ## Cal) +ptr) .44
("st Dist) "9&9') L0N#M K &#) 4 <m) Bur) #d Budges K &" L0N3M ;ope v) *tate, #.7 @a) 3#, 3.4 *)()#d
4#9 ("9&7') L0N4M ;ueAlo of 6aguna v) Cillessen N *on, 7nc), "%" N)9) 34", &# ;)#d "97 ("9&4')
L0N.M Clemmons v) ?olfe, 377 0)3d 3## (3d Cir) #%%4'= *tate v) /uc5er, #4 N)B) *uper) .49, #.
<)#d 34 (<pp) Div) "993') L0NM *tate e1 rel) 6eavitt v) District Court of /hirteenth Budicial Dist) 7n
and 0or >elloCstone County, "7# 9ont) "#, .% ;)#d ."7 ("977') L0N7M City of Gansas City v) ?iley,
97 *)?)#d #4% (9o) Ct) <pp) ?)D) "9&.')
/he +9C Eudges failed to comply Cith Coughlin4s *C+ ""% suApoena in the very matter in
Chich the +C< noC alleges Coughlin violated the /;$!(;$ Ay purportedly attempting to suAmit
documents for filing on "!3!"3 and "!"7!"3)
K 9&) Budge as party or potential party in oCn or related case ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest
?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budges 54., .% <)6)+) 6iArary 7nterest of Eudge in an official or
representative capacity, or relationship of Eudge to one Cho is a party in an official or representative
capacity, as dis3ualification, "% <)6)+)#d "3%7 < person cannot Ae a Eudge of his or her oCn cause)
L0N"M /he rule has Aeen applied to dis3ualify a Eudge Cho is a memAer of the class in Chose Aehalf a
class action is Arought)L0N#M Normally, a Eudge should not sit on litigation involving a party Cho is a
party to other litigation in Chich the Eudge himself or herself is a litigant,L0N3M although the filing of
laCsuits against one or more memAers of a court does not lead to the conclusion that another memAer
of that court cannot fairly preside in a different matter involving that party)L0N4M < Eudge is not
dis3ualified merely Aecause a litigant sues or threatens to sue him or herL0N.M on the ground that
such an easy method for oAtaining dis3ualification should not Ae encouraged or alloCed)L0NM <
Eudge is not re3uired to recuse himself or herself in a criminal case on the ground that the defendant4s
attorney Cor5s Cith laCyers Cho have testified against the Eudge in prior, unrelated proceedings
against the Eudge)L0N7M /he filing of sham or a frivolous pleading in Chich a Eudge is made a party
for the sole purpose of dis3ualifying him or her should not Ae alloCed)L0N&M /he fact that all Eudges
in the court have Aeen sued in a case does not re3uire recusal)L0N9M 7n some cases, merely nominal
parties to the record are dis3ualified to sit as Eudges,L0N"%M Chile other decisions treat a nominal
party to the record as 3ualified to sit as Eudge)L0N""M 4 <m) Bur) #d Budges K 9& C:9:6</7-(
*:;;6(9(N/ Cases: District Eudge Could not recuse himself in a Bivens action Arought against
tCo Eudges involved in plaintiff4s criminal conviction and suAse3uent petition for Crit of haAeas
corpus, even though Eudge Cas a named defendant in the action, until Eudge had determined Chether
action Cas so frivolous as to defeat suAEect matter Eurisdiction prior to any determination of Chether
recusal Could Ae appropriate) *negirev v) *edCic5, 4%7 0) *upp) #d "%93 (D) <las5a #%%') L(ND
$0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M *mith v) *mith, "". <riI) #99, .4 ;)#d "# (Ct) <pp) Div) " "977'=
*tate v) BroCn, 7% 8aC) 4.9, 77 ;)#d ""&# ("9&9') L0N#M ;ahl v) ?hitt, 3%4 *)?)#d #.% (/e1) Civ)
<pp) (l ;aso "9.7') L0N3M *mith v) *mith, "". <riI) #99, .4 ;)#d "# (Ct) <pp) Div) " "977'=
;eople v) 6oCenstein, ""& 9ich) <pp) 47., 3#. N)?)#d 4# ("9&#') L0N4M 7n re Dis3ualification of
Corts, 47 $hio *t) 3d %", .4 N)()#d 9#& ("9&&') L0N.M 9atter of +onCin, "39 <riI) .7, &% ;)#d
"%7 ("9&3'= ;eople v) 6oCenstein, ""& 9ich) <pp) 47., 3#. N)?)#d 4# ("9&#'= Callahan v) *tate,
7"# *)?)#d #. (9o) Ct) <pp) ()D) "9&'= NeC >or5 *tate <ss4n of Criminal Defense 6aCyers v)
- 41-
1
2
Gaye, 9. N)>)#d .., 7#" N)>)*)#d .&&, 744 N)()#d "#3 (#%%%'= 7n re Dis3ualification of Corts, 47
$hio *t) 3d %", .4 N)()#d 9#& ("9&&') L0NM 9atter of +onCin, "39 <riI) .7, &% ;)#d "%7
("9&3'= Com) e1 rel) 9eredith v) 9urphy, #9. Gy) 4, "74 *)?)#d &" ("943') L0N7M :)*) v)
-adner, "% 0)3d #3 (.th Cir) "99&') L0N&M Com) e1 rel) 9eredith v) 9urphy, #9. Gy) 4, "74
*)?)#d &" ("943') L0N9M 9atter of +onCin, "39 <riI) .7, &% ;)#d "%7 ("9&3'= ;eople v)
6oCenstein, ""& 9ich) <pp) 47., 3#. N)?)#d 4# ("9&#') L0N"%M Dan5mer v) City 7ce N 0uel Co),
"#" ?) -a) 7.#, *)()#d 77" ("939') L0N""M Bass v) 9inich, "94 <r5) .&9, "%9 *)?)#d "39 ("937'=
*tate e1 rel) 9itchell v) *age *tores Co), ".7 Gan) ##, "43 ;)#d .# ("943'= /hompson v) *tate, ".
*)?)#d "3" (/e1) Civ) <pp) <marillo "94#') T #%"# /homson +euters) 33234B T #%"# /homson
+euters!+7<) No Claim to $rig) :)*) @ovt) ?or5s) <ll rights reserved) <9B:+ B:D@(* K 9& (ND
$0 D$C:9(N/ <merican Burisprudence, *econd (dition DataAase updated <ugust #%"# Budges
6aura 8unter DietI, B)D) and 0ern 6) Gletter, B)D) and /homas B) CIelusta, B)D), of the staff of the
National 6egal +esearch @roup, 7nc) 7U) Dis3ualification to <ct in ;articular Case B) @rounds #)
7nterest A) ;articular 7nterests (#' Budge as ;arty or ?itness /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle
+eferences K 99) Budge as Citness ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budges
54., .% <)6)+) 6iArary Dis3ualification of Eudge on ground of Aeing a Citness in the case, ##
<)6)+)3d ""9& < Eudge Cill not Ae dis3ualified from presiding at a trial Ay the mere fact that he or
she may Ae a Citness,L0N"M or is familiar Cith the proceeding and supplements the record Cith
oAservations,L0N#M though it has Aeen said that Chen a Eudge ta5es the stand, it is e3uivalent to his or
her CithdraCing as a Eudge from the case,L0N3M and a Eudge Cho does so testify should recuse
himself or herself)L0N4M 7n some Eurisdictions, the Eudge, Ay statute, may Ae a Citness in any case
tried Aefore him or her,L0N.M and in many Eurisdictions, a Eudge Cho testifies is dis3ualified only if
he or she is a necessary or material Citness in the caseL0NM or is li5ely to Ae a material Citness)
L0N7M *ome courts ta5e the vieC that Chether a trial Eudge should dis3ualify himself or herself Chen
he or she is called as a Citness in a case tried Ay the Eudge is Cithin his or her discretion,L 0N&M and in
some Eurisdictions, appellate Eudges have ta5en the position, even Cithout a statute or rule, that they
should dis3ualify themselves Chere they have testified in the trial court)L0N9M L0N"M Gennedy v)
*tate, .9 $5la) Crim) "", .. ;)#d 79# ("93') <ttempts to dis3ualify Eudges Ay indicating that the
Eudge Cill Ae called as a Citness 4 <m) Bur) #d Budges K 99 are not favored and are rarely granted,
and such an easy method of dis3ualifying a Eudge should not Ae encouraged or alloCed) *tate e1 rel)
Gaufman v) Za5aiA, #%7 ?) -a) #, .3. *)()#d 7#7 (#%%%') L0N#M Davis v) *tate, .9& *)?)#d .&#
(9o) Ct) <pp) ?)D) "9&%') L0N3M Com) v) *coleri, 4". ;a) #"&, #%# <)#d .#" ("94') L0N4M (lmore
v) *tate, "3 <r5) <pp) ##", &# *)?)#d 7.& ("9&.'= Collins v) Di1ie /ransport, 7nc), .43 *o) #d "%
(9iss) "9&9'= 9unicipal ;uAlications, 7nc) v) Court of Common ;leas of ;hiladelphia County, .%7
;a) "94, 4&9 <)#d "#& ("9&.') L0N.M *tate e1 rel) ;hillips v) 8enderson, ##% /enn) 7%", 4#3 *)?)#d
4&9 ("9&') L0NM K "%") L0N7M *tate v) Blac5mon, 4 *)?)#d 44 (9o) Ct) <pp) *)D) "9&4') <s to
dis3ualification Chere a Eudge is a potential Citness, see K "%%) L0N&M *iva5 v) *tate, ""# 7daho "97,
73" ;)#d "9# ("9&'= ;eople v) 8ayes, 49 7ll) #d #9&, #73 N)()#d &3& ("97"') L0N9M @arland v) @ray,
"%& @a) <pp) 3%3, "3# *)()#d &34 ("93') <s to a Eudge4s duty to dis3ualify himself or herself,
generally, see K K "9, "7%)
K "%%) Budge as CitnessS<s potential Citness ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey
NumAer Digest, Budges 54., .% <)6)+) 6iArary Dis3ualification of Eudge on ground of Aeing a
Citness in the case, ## <)6)+)3d ""9& 9any courts hold that a trial Eudge is not dis3ualified from
presiding in a trial merely Aecause of a possiAility that he or she might Aecome a Citness in the case,
L0N"M although other courts have held to the contrary)L0N#M 7n some cases, it has Aeen held that a
Eudge is dis3ualified on a trial if he or she presided at a previous proceeding in or affecting the same
- 42-
1
2
action and might Ae compelled to testify aAout it at a later proceeding)L0N3M 7n other cases, the Eudge
has Aeen held not to Ae dis3ualified Chere the material evidence Cithin the Eudge4s 5noCledge could
Ae oAtained from other CitnessesL 0N4M or from the record of a prior related proceeding over Chich
the Eudge presided)L0N.M L0N"M +ush v) ?allace, #3 <r5) <pp) ", 74# *)?)#d 9.# ("9&&'= ;eople v)
8annon, 4& 7ll) #d 4#, #73 N)()#d 9 ("97"'= ;eople v) 8orton, 47 9isc) #d .&, #" N)>)*)#d 9
(*up "9.'= *tate e1 rel) *mith v) ?ilco1en, "9.7 $G C+ .", 3"# ;)#d "&7 ($5la) Crim) <pp) "9.7'=
*to5es v) *tate, &.3 *)?)#d ##7 (/e1) <pp) /yler "993'= 0ay v) -an (lls, "34 -t) .3, 37 <)#d "7
("97') L0N#M 7n re Dis3ualification of Corrigan, 47 $hio *t) 3d %#, .4 N)()#d 9#. ("9&9'= 4 <m)
Bur) #d Budges K "%% *tate e1 rel) Carroll v) Bun5er, 79 ?ash) #d "#, 4&# ;)#d 77. ("97"') L0N3M
;eople v) Dennis, "4 7ll) <pp) 3d 493, 3%# N)()#d ." ("st Dist) "973'= *tate e1 rel) *mith v)
?ilco1en, "9.7 $G C+ .", 3"# ;)#d "&7 ($5la) Crim) <pp) "9.7') L0N4M Bresnahan v) 6uAy, "%
Colo) 4.., 4"& ;)#d "7", ## <)6)+)3d ""93 ("9') L0N.M ?alls v) *pell, 7## *o) #d . (9iss)
"99&')
K "%") Budge as CitnessS<s material or necessary Citness ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s
Gey NumAer Digest, Budges 54., .% <)6)+) 6iArary Dis3ualification of Eudge on ground of Aeing a
Citness in the case, ## <)6)+)3d ""9& 7n some Eurisdictions, a trial Eudge Cho has Aeen, or is to Ae
called, as a Citness in a case tried Aefore him or her is dis3ualified from presiding in the case if he or
she is a material or necessary Citness in the case)L0N"M /he Code of Budicial Conduct states that a
Eudge should dis3ualify himself or herself if he or she is li5ely to Ae a material Citness in the
proceeding)L 0N#M /he rule is statutory in some Eurisdictions)L0N3M < trial Eudge is not a DmaterialD
Citness in the case unless his or her testimony is actually material and necessary to the determination
of the case)L0N4M < Eudge is not a material Citness Chere there are other availaAle Citnesses Cho can
give the same testimony)L0N.M < trial Eudge Cho is to Ae called as a character Citness on Aehalf of a
criminal defendant is dis3ualified as Aeing a material Citness)L0NM L0N"M 9alone v) *tate, #& <la)
73, #4# *o) #d 4"% ("97%'= Bresnahan v) 6uAy, "% Colo) 4.., 4"& ;)#d "7", ## <)6)+)3d ""93
("9'= ;eople v) ;ifer, &% 7ll) <pp) 3d #4, 3. 7ll) Dec) 47, 399 N)()#d 3"% (#d Dist) "979'= *tate v)
/alley, .7# *o) #d #3% (6a) Ct) <pp) "st Cir) "99%'= Davis v) *tate, .9& *)?)#d .&# (9o) Ct) <pp)
?)D) "9&%'= Bames v) *tate, . N)B) *uper) #"3, ".# <)#d 3& (<pp) Div) "9.9'= CosloC v) *tate,
"97" $G C+ 4.", 49% ;)#d """ ($5la) Crim) <pp) "97"') 4 <m) Bur) #d Budges K "%" L0N#M
<)B)<) Code of Budicial Conduct, Canon 3 ( ("'(d'(iv') L0N3M *tate e1 rel) 0errera v) *andler, ".#
0la) ."7, "# *o) #d #9& ("943'= *tate v) Gelley, #4" 6a) ##4, "#& *o) #d "& ("9"'= *tate e1 rel) *mith
v) ?ilco1en, "9.7 $G C+ .", 3"# ;)#d "&7 ($5la) Crim) <pp) "9.7'= Com) v) 9usto, 34& ;a) 3%%, 3.
<)#d 3%7 ("944') L0N4M *tate e1 rel) 0errera v) *andler, ".# 0la) ."7, "# *o) #d #9& ("943'= ;eople v)
+odri3ueI, "4 <)D)#d 9"7, ##" N)>)*)#d .3# (#d Dep4t "9"') L0N.M Bresnahan v) 6uAy, "% Colo)
4.., 4"& ;)#d "7", ## <)6)+)3d ""93 ("9'= Com) v) 9usto, 34& ;a) 3%%, 3. <)#d 3%7 ("944') 7n
order to dis3ualify a Eudge on the Aasis that he or she might Ae called as a Citness at trial, there must
Ae a shoCing that the Eudge Cill testify as to a material fact aAout Chich no other Citness might
testify) ;eople <gainst /a1 +evenue 9ismanagement, 7nc) v) +eynolds, .7" *o) #d 493 (0la) Dist) Ct)
<pp) "st Dist) "99%') L0NM *tate v) Gelley, #4" 6a) ##4, "#& *o) #d "& ("9"')
Neither Budge (lliott nor Budge *attler CithdreC from C-""2%"9.. despite Aoth serving on
the Boards of the co2defendant4s Coughlin Cas suing therein, ?ashoe 6egal *ervices and C<<?)
W7U) Dis3ualification to <ct in ;articular Case B) @rounds #) 7nterest A) ;articular 7nterests (3'
<ssociation Cith $rganiIation or Business /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K "%3)
$fficer, director, or trustee of corporation= officer of unincorporated association ?est4s Gey NumAer
Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budges 54#, 4. <)6)+) 6iArary 7nterest of Eudge in an official or
- 43-
1
2
representative capacity, or relationship of Eudge to one Cho is a party in an official or representative
capacity, as dis3ualification, "% <)6)+)#d "3%7 /he Code of Budicial Conduct states that a Eudge
should dis3ualify himself or herself if he or she is an officer, director, or trustee of a party in the
proceeding)L0N"M < Eudge Cho holds one of these positions in an ordinary Ausiness corporation is
dis3ualified to hear a case in Chich the corporation has a pecuniary interest, Aecause his or her duty
to promote the corporation4s Celfare clashes Cith the impartiality re3uired of a Eudge)L0N#M ?here a
corporation has no direct or pecuniary interest in a case, the fact that a Eudge is an officer or director
of the corporation does not dis3ualify him or her)L0N3M *imilarly, a Eudge is not dis3ualified Chere he
or she is a director and stoc5holder in a corporation originally a party to an action Aut dismissed Ay
the other party Aefore any action Ay the Eudge)L0N4M 8oCever, a trial Eudge Cho is on the Aoard of
directors of a corporation Chich employs one of the named defendants should recuse himself or
herself from the case)L0N.M *ince the interest of an officer of an unincorporated association is
commonly not pecuniary, a Eudge Cho is or has Aeen an officer of such an association generally is not
dis3ualified to hear a case in Chich the association is interested)L0NM L0N"M <)B)<) Code of Budicial
Conduct, Canon 3 ( ("'(d'(i') 4 <m) Bur) #d Budges K "%3 L0N#M @aer v) Ban5 of Ba5er, """ 9ont)
#%4, "%7 ;)#d &77 ("94%'= <ppeal of <s5ounes, "44 ;a) *uper) #93, "9 <)#d &4 ("94"'= 6indsley v)
6indsley, ".# *)?)#d 4". (/e1) Civ) <pp) Dallas "94"', Eudgment rev4d on other grounds, "39 /e1)
."#, "3 *)?)#d 33 (Comm4n <pp) "94#') <s to dis3ualification Aased on pecuniary interest,
generally, see K 9#) L0N3M <ppeal of <s5ounes, "44 ;a) *uper) #93, "9 <)#d &4 ("94"') L0N4M
8olland v) 9organ N ;eacoc5 ;roperties Co), "& Cal) <pp) #d #"#, 33. ;)#d 773 ("st Dist) "9.9')
<s to the issue of dis3ualification of a Eudge Chen the Eudge is a stoc5holder and the interests of the
corporation are at issue in the matter Aefore him or her, see K "%4) L0N.M <cromag2-i5ing v) Blaloc5,
4#% *o) #d % (<la) "9&#') L0NM 8eights Democratic CluA v) BreCer, "&7 9isc) ", " N)>)*)#d
7.. (*up "94')
K "%.) $fficer, director, trustee, or advisor of religious organiIation ?est4s Gey NumAer
Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budges 54# /he Code of Budicial Conduct states that a Eudge may
serve as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit religious organiIation, Aut he
or she should not serve if it is li5ely that the organiIation Could Ae involved in proceedings that
Could ordinarily come Aefore the Eudge or Could Ae regularly involved in litigation in any court)
L0N"M L0N"M <)B)<) Code of Budicial Conduct, Canon 4C(3')
7U) Dis3ualification to <ct in ;articular Case B) @rounds 4) Bias or ;reEudice A) <pparent
;reEudice /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K "39) @enerally ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest
?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budges 549("', 49(#' <ny triAunal permitted Ay laC to try cases or
controversies must not only Ae unAiased Aut must avoid even the appearance of Aias)L0N"M Due
process re3uires the appearance as Cell as the fact of impartiality)L0N#M (ven if a Eudge is convinced
of his or her oCn impartiality, dis3ualification is nonetheless re3uired if circumstances compromise
the appearance of fairness and impartiality, such that the parties and the puAlic are left Cith
suAstantial douAt as to the aAility of the Eudge to fairly and impartially resolve pending litigation)
L0N3M /he appearance of Aias or preEudice can Ae as damaging to puAlic competence and the
administration of Eustice as actual Aias or preEudice and is sufficient to Carrant dis3ualification of a
Eudge even in the aAsence of actual preEudice)L0N4M <cts or conduct Chich give the appearance of
partiality should Ae avoided Cith the same degree of Ieal as acts or conduct Chich ine1oraAly
Aespea5 partiality) ?here a Eudge4s freedom from Aias or his or her preEudgment of an issue is called
into 3uestion, the in3uiry is no longer Chether he or she actually is preEudiced= the in3uiry is Chether
an onloo5er might on the Aasis of oAEective facts reasonaAly 3uestion Chether he or she is so)L0N.M
C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: 7t is not necessary to prove actual preEudice on the part of the
- 44-
1
2
court to estaAlish an appearance of impropriety that re3uires dis3ualification= an oAEectively
reasonaAle Aelief that the proceedings Cere unfair is sufficient) DeNi5e v) Cupo, "9 N)B) .%#, 9.&
<)#d 44 (#%%&') :nder the appearance of fairness doctrine, a Eudicial proceeding is valid only if a
reasonaAly prudent, disinterested oAserver Could conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial
and neutral hearing) *tate v) @amAle, "& ?ash) #d "", ##. ;)3d 973 (#%"%') 4 <m) Bur) #d Budges
K "39 L(ND $0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M *tate v) 6aCour, 493 *o) #d 7. (6a) Ct) <pp) #d Cir) "9&',
Crit denied, 49 *o) #d "%4" (6a) "9&'= 9c-ay v) Zoning 8earing Bd) of NeC Bethlehem Borough,
9" ;a) CommC) #&7, 49 <)#d "3#& ("9&.'= *mith v) 9ount, 4. ?ash) <pp) #3, 7# ;)#d 474, &4
<)6)+)4th #7 (Div) " "9&') L0N#M *Cift v) Gniffen, 7% ;)#d #9 (<las5a "9&.') L0N3M ;eople v)
*chupper, #%%. ?6 "%3&&&# (Colo) Ct) <pp) #%%.') L0N4M 7n 7nterest of 9c0all, .33 ;a) #4, "7
<)#d 7%7 ("99#') L0N.M *tate v) @arner, 7% *)?)#d &93 (9o) Ct) <pp) *)D) "9&&') T #%"# /homson
+euters) 33234B T #%"# /homson +euters!+7<) No Claim to $rig) :)*) @ovt) ?or5s) <ll rights
reserved) <9B:+ B:D@(* K "39 (ND $0 D$C:9(N/ <merican Burisprudence, *econd (dition
DataAase updated <ugust #%"# Budges 6aura 8unter DietI, B)D) and 0ern 6) Gletter, B)D) and /homas
B) CIelusta, B)D), of the staff of the National 6egal +esearch @roup, 7nc) 7U) Dis3ualification to <ct in
;articular Case B) @rounds 4) Bias or ;reEudice A) <pparent ;reEudice /opic *ummary Correlation
/aAle +eferences K "4%) Budge4s impartiality might reasonaAly Ae 3uestioned ?est4s Gey NumAer
Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budges 549("', 49(#' 7t is the duty of a presiding Eudge under Aoth
statutory and decisional laC to recuse himself or herself Chen he or she has any douAt as to his or her
aAility to preside impartially or Chenever his or her impartiality can Ae reasonaAly 3uestioned)L0N"M
/he canons or rules of Eudicial conduct re3uire that a Eudge should dis3ualify himself or herself in any
proceeding in Chich his or her impartiality might reasonaAly Ae 3uestioned,L0N#M and such rules are
emAodied in a federal statute)L0N3M :nder such canons or rules, the test is not Chether actual Aias
and preEudice e1ists, Aut Chether a reasonaAle person Could have factual grounds to douAt the
impartiality of the court)L0N4M /he standard to Ae applied in considering Eudicial dis3ualification is
Chether the charge of lac5 of impartiality is grounded on facts that Could create reasonaAle douAt
concerning the Eudge4s impartiality, not in the mind of the Eudge himself or herself or even,
necessarily, in the mind of the litigant filing the motion, Aut rather in the mind of a reasonaAle person
5noCing all the facts 5noCn to the Eudge)L0N.M 8oCever, some courts in applying such a canon have
re3uired that the movant or petitioner shoC some evidence of Aias or preEudice of the Eudge)L0NM
*ituations Chich might give rise to the 3uestion of Chether a Eudge4s impartiality might reasonaAly Ae
3uestioned include cases Chere the trial Eudge 5noCs he or she is li5ely to Ae a material Citness)
L0N7M C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: /o decide Chether Eudge is dis3ualified from hearing
case on ground that Dhis impartiality might reasonaAly Ae 3uestioned,D court must in3uire Chether
Eudge is Aiased against party, not 4 <m) Bur) #d Budges K "4% Chether Eudge is annoyed Cith party4s
counsel) @omeI v) *t) Bude 9edical Daig Div) 7nc), 44# 0)3d 9"9 (.th Cir) #%%') <lthough the trial
Eudge Aelieves in his oCn impartiality, it is the court4s duty to eliminate every semAlance of
reasonaAle douAt or suspicion that a trial Ay a fair and impartial triAunal may Ae denied= thus, in
assessing the sufficiency of the motion and affidavits, the Eudge must consider the appearance of Aias,
for the integrity of the Eudicial process is impaired Chen the puAlic perceives partiality on the part of
a Eudge) ;eople e1 rel) <)@), #4 ;)3d ". (Colo) <pp) #%"%', certiorari granted in part, #%"" ?6
&.&%& (Colo) #%""' and rev4d in part, vacated in part, ## ;)3d 4 (Colo) #%""') /he mere Aelief that
a Eudge might not Ae completely impartial is insufficient to Carrant recusal) Code of Bud)Conduct,
Canon 3(('(#') *tate v) <tCood, #%"% 9( "#, 9&& <)#d 9&" (9e) #%"%') /he NeC 8ampshire
Constitution guarantees the right of every citiIen to Ae tried Ay Eudges as impartial as the lot of
humanity Cill admit, and the Code of Budicial Conduct reflects this guarantee and re3uires
- 45-
1
2
dis3ualification in a proceeding Chere the Eudge4s impartiality might reasonaAly Ae 3uestioned and to
avoid even the appearance of impropriety) Const) ;t) ", <rt) 3.= *up)Ct)+ules, +ule 3&, Code of
Bud)Conduct, Canon 3(('("') *tate v) Belyea, 999 <)#d "%&% (N)8) #%"%') ?ith respect to Eudicial
dis3ualification, Eustice must satisfy the appearance of Eustice) *tate v) 9cCaAe, #%" N)B) 34, 9&7
<)#d .7 (#%"%') <ny sort of employment negotiations Cith a party, Chether preliminary, tentative,
indirect, unintentional, or ultimately unsuccessful, right Aefore or during a pending matter, reasonaAly
call into 3uestion a Eudge4s impartiality) DeNi5e v) Cupo, "9 N)B) .%#, 9.& <)#d 44 (#%%&') /rial
Eudge4s negotiations for post2retirement employment Cith laCyer Cho Cas handling a contested,
pending matter Aefore Eudge created an appearance of impropriety that re3uired dis3ualification under
Canon of Code of Budicial Conduct providing that a Eudge should dis3ualify himself in a proceeding
in Chich the Eudge4s impartiality might reasonaAly Ae 3uestioned and +ule directing Eudges not to sit
in any matter Chen there is any reason Chich might preclude a fair and unAiased hearing and
Eudgment, or Chich might reasonaAly lead counsel or the parties to Aelieve so= Aecause employment
discussions Aegan Eust days after Eudge issued second supplemental decision, and in the midst of
arguments over the shape of the final Eudgment, the puAlic had reason to lac5 confidence in the
integrity of the process and its outcome) DeNi5e v) Cupo, "9 N)B) .%#, 9.& <)#d 44 (#%%&') < Eudge
should dis3ualify himself in a proceeding in Chich his impartiality might reasonaAly Ae 3uestioned,
including instances Chere he has a personal Aias or preEudice against a party) Goon v) 0ares, 379 *)C)
".%, *)()#d #3% (#%%&') Due process, the appearance of fairness doctrine and the Code of
Budicial Conduct re3uire a Eudge to dis3ualify himself if he is Aiased against a party or his impartiality
may reasonaAly Ae 3uestioned) 7n re ?iatt, "." ?ash) <pp) ##, #"" ;)3d "%3% (Div) # #%%9') L(ND
$0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M *tate e1 rel) (dmisten v) /uc5er, 3"# N)C) 3#, 3#3 *)()#d #94 ("9&4')
L0N#M :)*) v) Cherry, 33% 0)3d .& (4th Cir) #%%3'= ;erotti v) *tate, &% ;)#d 3#. (<las5a Ct) <pp)
"99"'= Zoline v) /elluride 6odge <ss4n, 73# ;)#d 3. (Colo) "9&7'= 6os v) 6os, .9. <)#d 3&" (Del)
"99"'= *tate v) Biddle, .# N)?)#d "9" (7oCa #%%#'= *tate v) 6ogan, #3 Gan) 79, &9 ;)#d 77&
("9&4'= Nichols v) Com), &39 *)?)#d #3 (Gy) "99#'= 8arris v) Board of /rustees of *tate Colleges,
4%. 9ass) ."., .4# N)()#d #", .. (d) 6aC +ep) #47 ("9&9'= ?orthington v) *tate, " *)?)3d .
(9o) #%%.'= Blaisdell v) City of +ochester, "3. N)8) .&9, %9 <)#d 3&&, #9 <)6)+).th &9" ("99#'=
$rtiI v) City of NeC >or5, "3 9isc) #d .%%, ."& N)>)*)#d 9"3 (*up "9&7'= DelIer v) :nited Ban5 of
Bismarc5, 4&4 N)?)#d .%# (N)D) "99#'= <rcon Const) Co), 7nc) v) *outh Da5ota Cement ;lant, 3&#
N)?)#d & (*)D) "9&'= *tate v) Neeley, 74& ;)#d "%9" (:tah "9&&'= *tate v) (astaAroo5, .& ?ash)
<pp) &%., 79. ;)#d "." (Div) # "99%'= /empleton v) /empleton, "79 ?) -a) .97, 37" *)()#d "7.
("9&&') L0N3M #& :)*)C)<) K 4..(a') <s to dis3ualification under #& :)*)C)<) K 4..(a' on the Aasis
that a Eudge4s impartiality might reasonaAly Ae 3uestioned, see <m) Bur) #d, 0ederal Courts KK 7% to
94) L0N4M Befferson2(l v) *tate, 33% 9d) 99, ## <)#d 737 ("993'= ?orthington v) *tate, " *)?)3d
. (9o) #%%.'= *tate e1 rel) Bardac5e v) ?elsh, "%# N)9) .9#, 9& ;)#d 4# (Ct) <pp) "9&.'= *tate
v) (astaAroo5, .& ?ash) <pp) &%., 79. ;)#d "." (Div) # "99%') :nder the DreasonaAle personD test for
recusal of a federal Eudge on the grounds of 3uestionaAle impartiality, the reasonaAle person in a
comple1, mass2tort, asAestos2related Aan5ruptcy case is the same average layperson Cho Could
provide the standard in any case, not a person Cith professional s5ills and e1perience in such
litigation) 7n re Gensington 7ntern) 6td), 3& 0)3d #&9 (3d Cir) #%%4') L0N.M +iola v) 6ong 7sland
Cycle N 9arine, 7nc), 3.# 0) *upp) #d 3. (()D) N)>) #%%.'= 8enderson v) @ N @ Corp), .&# *o) #d
.#9 (<la) "99"'= Bonelli v) Bonelli, #"4 Conn) "4, .7% <)#d "&9, &. <)6)+)4th 9" ("99%'= *tate v)
*trayer, #4# Gan) "&, 7.% ;)#d 39% ("9&&'= Boyd v) *tate, 3#" 9d) 9, .&" <)#d " ("99%'= +ichard
v) +ichard, "4 -t) #&, .%" <)#d ""9% ("9&.') L0NM 6yvers v) 6yvers, #&% *)C) 3", 3"# *)()#d
.9% (Ct) <pp) "9&4') L0N7M Callahan v) *tate, ..7 *o) #d "#9# (<la) Crim) <pp) "9&9', Eudgment
- 46-
1
2
aff4d, ..7 *o) #d "3"" (<la) "9&9') <s to the dis3ualification of a Eudge as a material Citness, see K
"%") T #%"# /homson +euters) 33234B T #%"# /homson +euters!+7<) No Claim to $rig) :)*) @ovt)
?or5s) <ll rights reserved) <9B:+ B:D@(* K "4% (ND $0 D$C:9(N/ <merican Burisprudence,
*econd (dition DataAase updated <ugust #%"# Budges 6aura 8unter DietI, B)D) and 0ern 6) Gletter,
B)D) and /homas B) CIelusta, B)D), of the staff of the National 6egal +esearch @roup, 7nc) 7U)
Dis3ualification to <ct in ;articular Case B) @rounds 4) Bias or ;reEudice A) <pparent ;reEudice
/opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K "4") Business, political, or social relations ?est4s
Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budges 549("', 49(#' ;reEudice groCing out of
Ausiness, political, or social relations generally is insufficient to dis3ualify a Eudge)L0N"M
Dis3ualification generally has not Aeen mandated simply Aecause a Eudge 5noCs socially one or more
of the parties,L0N#M particularly in rural districts, Chere it is not at all uncommon for a Eudge to have
a friendly relationship Cith numerous memAers of the community, Aut to nevertheless adEudicate
legal issues Chich arise among community memAers)L 0N3M < trial Eudge is a part of the society in the
community in Chich he or she sits, Eust li5e any other citiIen, and it is an inescapaAle fact of life that
he or she Cill have had associations and friendships Cith parties coming Aefore the court)L0N4M
8oCever, there is authority that if social relations AetCeen a Eudge and a party are suAstantial enough
to merit disclosure Ay the Eudge and invite a motion for recusal, then, Chen such a motion is made,
the disclosing Eudge should, as a general rule, dis3ualify himself or herself)L0N.M C:9:6</7-(
*:;;6(9(N/ Cases: Budges should Cait a reasonaAle period of time Aefore discussing post2
retirement employment Cith an attorney or laC firm that has appeared Aefore the Eudge, and Chat is
reasonaAle depends on the circumstances) DeNi5e v) Cupo, "9 N)B) .%#, 9.& <)#d 44 (#%%&') L(ND
$0 *:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M .3 Broad *treet Corp) v) -alco 9ortg) Co), "3. N)B) (3) .&", 39 <)#d
7%% (Ch) 4 <m) Bur) #d Budges K "4" "944', order aff4d, "3 N)B) (3) ."3, 4# <)#d 7%4 (Ct) (rr) N
<pp) "94.') 7n a capital murder case, the trial court did not err in stri5ing the defendant4s motion to
dis3ualify the court and all Eudges at the courthouse Aased not on the assertion that the Eudge Cas
personally Aiased against the defendant Aut Aecause the victim4s mother Cas a paralegal or legal
secretary, and her fiance Cas a criminal defense laCyer, and Aoth Cere 5noCn to court personnel at
the courthouse and had personal relationships Cith some of them) ;eople v) ;anah, 3. Cal) 4th 39.,
#. Cal) +ptr) 3d 7#, "%7 ;)3d 79% (#%%.', petition for cert) filed (:)*) $ct) "7, #%%.') L0N#M *ears v)
*tate, ## @a) &%., 4# *)()#d ..3 ("993') L0N3M Donnell v) Donnell, .7 *o) #d ""43 (6a) Ct) <pp)
#d Cir) "99%') L0N4M (1 parte 8ill, .%& *o) #d #9 (<la) Civ) <pp) "9&7'= Bi1ler v) *tate, 47" N)()#d
"%93 (7nd) "9&4') L0N.M +ichard v) +ichard, "4 -t) #&, .%" <)#d ""9% ("9&.')
7U) Dis3ualification to <ct in ;articular Case B) @rounds 4) Bias or ;reEudice c) Budge4s
<ctions or +ulings /opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K "49) Comments made Ay Eudge
during proceedings ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budges 549("', 49(#'
<)6)+) 6iArary Dis3ualification or +ecusal of Budge Due to Comments at Continuing 6egal
(ducation (C6(' *eminar or $ther (ducational 9eetings, 49 <)6)+)th 93 /rial *trategy
Dis3ualification of /rial Budge for Cause, .% <m) Bur) ;roof of 0acts 3d 449 0orms <m) Bur) ;leading
and ;ractice 0orms, Criminal ;rocedure K 3%# <m) Bur) ;leading and ;ractice 0orms, 0ederal
;ractice and ;rocedure KK "%33, "%3. <m) Bur) ;leading and ;ractice 0orms, Budges KK ., &, ", "& to
#%, #3 to #., #7, #& <m) Bur) ;leading and ;ractice 0orms, /rial KK #, #& 6aC +evieCs and $ther
;eriodicals Geeping :p <ppearances: /he Constitutionality of the 9odel Code of Budicial Conduct4s
;rohiAition of (1traEudicial *peech Creating the <ppearance of Bias, "9 @eo) B) 6egal (thics 44"
(#%%' 4 <m) Bur) #d Budges K "49 *o long as a Eudge remains open2minded enough to refrain from
finally deciding a case until all the evidence has Aeen presented, comments made Ay the Eudge during
the course of the proceedings generally Cill not Ae considered as indicative of dis3ualifying Aias or
- 47-
1
2
preEudice)L 0N"M <Asent 3uite unusual circumstances, a Eudge cannot Ae recused for vieCs formed on
the Aasis of Chat he or she learned in court)L0N#M Budicial remar5s made during the course of a trial
that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases ordinarily do
not support a Aias or partiality challenge)L0N3M ?hat a Eudge learns in his or her Eudicial capacity is a
proper Aasis for Eudicial oAservations and the use of such information should not result in
dis3ualification)L0N4M 9ere criticism of a party or his or her attorney does not indicate preEudice)
L0N.M 8oCever, Chen a Eudge4s remar5s are so e1treme that they shoC that his or her decision has
Aeen predetermined, improper Aias or preEudice Cill Ae found to e1ist)L0NM L0N"M 9adsen v)
;rudential 0ederal *av) and 6oan <ss4n, 77 ;)#d .3& (:tah "9&&') L0N#M $Aert v) +epuAlic ?estern
7ns) Co), 39& 0)3d "3& ("st Cir) #%%.') L0N3M 7n re Community Ban5 of Northern -irginia, 4"& 0)3d
#77 (3d Cir) #%%.') L0N4M ;eople v) 9cCarty, &." ;)#d "&" (Colo) Ct) <pp) "99#', Eudgment aff4d,
&74 ;)#d 394 (Colo) "994') L0N.M 7n re <ntonio, "# <)#d .% (+)7) "99#') L0NM Burgess v) *tate, &9
9d) <pp) .##, .9& <)#d &3% ("99"'= 9iddleton v) (vers, .". *o) #d 94% (9iss) "9&7') < Eudge4s
comments during sentencing, that his goal from the Aeginning Cas to enforce a repatriation order
against the defendant and a final Eudgment issued during a concurrent civil proceeding and give Aac5
the recovered proceeds to the puAlic, Cas a star5 e1ample of the appearance of a high degree of
antagonism toCard the defendant and the district Eudge should have sua sponte recused himself) :)*)
v) <ntar, .3 0)3d .& (3d Cir) "99.')
Budge Clifton responded to Coughlin 3uery on #!"3!"3 as to Chy the . day contempt
incarceration Cas not set off Ay the time served Coughlin had already accrued in +C+"#2%.3%, to
Chich Budge Clifton responded that such accrued time served Could Ae ta5en off the sentence Budge
Clifton gave Coughlin once all the evidence Cas in an he had heard the parties closign arguments)
Despite his presence at the "#!""!"# trial date in +C+"#2%.3% Aeing mentioned in the
alleged "#!"#!"# email from Coughlin Cith a suAEect line of D/he /hree (4sD (apparently referencing
?6*4s (lcano, #BDC Budge (lliott, and NNDB ;anel Chair (cheverria, Chom all Cent to *tanford
:niversity toegether in the late "9%4s, and Chere (lliott Cor5ed as an associate at (cheverria4s
father4s laC firm, (lcano and (cheverria admit to Aeing Aoyhood chums, active in the Cine Ausiness,
etc), etc), and Chere (lliott served on C<<?4s (1ecutive Board yet failed to mention that or recuse
himself in Coughlin4s Crongful termination laCsuite Cherein ?6* and C<<? Cere co2defendant4s
C-""2%"9.., a matter Chich Cas ta5en over Ay former ?CD<4s $fficer criminal division Chief
Deputy , noC Budge *attler) NoC Cith #BDC Chief Budge 8ardy4s sudden $rder transferring all of
Coughlin4s cases to #BDC Budge *tiglich, removing some . criminal matters Cherein Coughlin is a
defendant or appellant from Budge *attler, the legitimacy of Budge *attler4s recent rulings on
Coughlin4s cases, particularly the appeal and 9andamus related thereto of a *C+ """(' conviction
issued Ay Budge Clifton in C+"32%"4, and the connected mandamus petition in C+"32%..# (Chich
Budge *attler struc5 from the record, similar to Budge (lliott stri5ing most all of Coughlin4s filings on
his last day in office 3!&!"3 in C+"#2#%#.' is, uh, rather suspect)
.) ;rior ;articipation in, Connection ?ith, or GnoCledge of the Case or ;arties c) <s <ttorney
/opic *ummary Correlation /aAle +eferences K ") <s prosecutor ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s
Gey NumAer Digest, Budges 547("', 47(#' <)6)+) 6iArary ;rior +epresentation or <ctivity as
;rosecuting <ttorney as Dis3ualifying Budge from *itting or <cting in Criminal Case, &. <)6)+).th
47" 0orms <ffidavitS/o dis3ualify Eudge for preEudiceS;revious prosecution of defendant Ay Eudge
Chile district attorney, <m) Bur) ;leading and ;ractice 0orms, Budges K ## < numAer of courts have
ta5en the position that a Eudge Cho had Aeen a district attorney at the time that the defendant Cas
prosecuted for an offense is dis3ualified, in general, from sitting as a Eudge in a further proceeding
involving the same defendant in the same offense, often on the ground that a statutory provision
- 48-
1
2
renders the Eudge dis3ualified, despite the fact that the Eudge Cas not at all involved in the actual
prosecution)L0N"M 8oCever, other courts have reached the conclusion that a Eudge is not dis3ualified
if he or she did not appear personally or participate in the action,L0N#M fre3uently reasoning that
dis3ualification on such grounds Could hamper the smooth operation of Eudicial administration Ay
causing too many dis3ualifications on technical grounds)L0N3M < Eudge Cho Cas a former prosecutor
is not dis3ualified from hearing a criminal case if the crime occurredL0N4M or the information Cas
filedL0N.M after the Eudge Cas appointed) $ne Cho has personally prosecuted or Aeen actively
engaged in any Cay in the prosecution and conviction of one accused of a crime is dis3ualified from
sitting as Eudge in a matter 4 <m) Bur) #d Budges K " involving that conviction, even in the aAsence
of a shoCing of Aias)L0NM ?hile it has Aeen held that a Eudge should dis3ualify himself or herself in
a criminal matter Chich Cas pending in his or her office Chen he or she Cas prosecutor, Chether or
not he or she actually participated in the investigation or prosecution of the case, or had actual
5noCledge of it on the Aasis that as the prior head of such office, a Eudge Could have had the overall
responsiAility for the conduct of the case,L0N7M there is also authority that a Eudge, Cho had Aeen a
district attorney in a mere supervisory or administrative capacity at the time that a defendant Cas
prosecuted for an offense, should not Ae dis3ualified, since the Eudge had never handled the case or
acted as counsel,L0N&M and dis3ualification on such technical grounds Could hamper the smooth
operation of Eudicial administration)L0N9M L0N"M (1 parte *anders, .9 *o) #d "%3 (<la) Crim) <pp)
"99.'= *tate e1 rel) CorAin v) *uperior Court of *tate of <riI), 7n and 0or 9aricopa County, ".. <riI)
.%, 74& ;)#d ""&4 ("9&7'= *mall v) Com), "7 *)?)#d " (Gy) Ct) <pp) "9&"'= *tate v) ?illiams, 7&&
*o) #d .". (6a) Ct) <pp) 4th Cir) #%%"'= 0rierson v) *tate, % *o) #d %4 (9iss) "99#'= ;eople v)
*cott, 34 <)D)#d 4%7, 3"3 N)>)*)#d "&. (4th Dep4t "97%'= 6ee v) *tate, ... *)?)#d "#" (/e1) Crim)
<pp) "977') L0N#M 9angum v) 8argett, 7 0)3d &% (.th Cir) "99.'= ;ayne v) *tate, 4& <la) <pp) 4%",
#. *o) #d "&. (Crim) <pp) "97#'= ;eople v) Delongchamps, "%3 9ich) <pp) ".", 3%# N)?)#d #
("9&"'= +odrigueI v) *tate, 4&9 *)?)#d "#" (/e1) Crim) <pp) "97#') L0N3M *tate e1 rel) CorAin v)
*uperior Court of *tate of <riI), 7n and 0or 9aricopa County, ".. <riI) .%, 74& ;)#d ""&4 ("9&7')
L0N4M Birge v) *tate, .3 <la) <pp) .#4, 3%" *o) #d #& (Crim) <pp) "974'= Geel v) *tate, ..# ;)#d
".. (<las5a "97'= ;eople v) /homas, & Cal) 3d ."&, "%. Cal) +ptr) 3, .%3 ;)#d "374 ("97#')
L0N.M Com) v) Darush, .%" ;a) "., 4.9 <)#d 7#7 ("9&3') L0NM 0isher v) *tate, #% <r5) "77, "74
*)?)#d 44 ("943'= +oAerts v) *tate, "" *o) #d &77 (0la) Dist) Ct) <pp) #d Dist) "94'= Calvert v)
*tate, 49& N)()#d "%. (7nd) Ct) <pp) 4th Dist) "9&'= *mith v) *tate, #"# 9iss) 497, .4 *o) #d 739
("9."'= *tate v) /uc5er, #4 N)B) *uper) .49, #. <)#d 34 (<pp) Div) "993'= Cantu v) *tate, &%#
*)?)#d 349 (/e1) <pp) *an <ntonio "99%', petition for discretionary revieC refused, (9ay ", "99"')
L0N7M *tate v) 9cNamara, #"# N)B) *uper) "%#, ."4 <)#d 3 (<pp) Div) "9&') L0N&M ;eople v)
/homas, "99 7ll) <pp) 3d 79, "4. 7ll) Dec) 344, .. N)()#d "#4 (#d Dist) "99%') L0N9M /urner v)
*tate, .73 *o) #d .7 (9iss) "99%')
K "7) <s prosecutorS;rosecution in other criminal proceedings ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest
?est4s Gey NumAer Digest, Budges 547("', 47(#' <)6)+) 6iArary ;rior +epresentation or <ctivity as
;rosecuting <ttorney as Dis3ualifying Budge from *itting or <cting in Criminal Case, &. <)6)+).th
47" Budges are not dis3ualified from sitting or acting in criminal cases on the ground that they have
previously prosecuted defendants in unrelated criminal proceedings)L0N"M /here is no per se rule that
a Eudge Cho has formerly prosecuted a defendant must dis3ualify himself or herself from presiding
over a trial on unrelated charges against that defendant aAsent some shoCing of preEudgment or Aias)
L0N#M 8oCever, Chere a Eudge previously prosecuted a defendant on related charges, dis3ualification
has Aeen held necessary)L0N3M < Eudge Cho Cas a prosecutor is not dis3ualified from hearing a case
involving a repeat offender, Cho may Ae suAEect to enhanced punishment, even though the Eudge
- 49-
1
2
prosecuted the defendant in the prior felony cases,L0N4M though there is authority that Eudges are
dis3ualified from sitting or acting in criminal cases on the ground that they previously prosecuted the
defendants in unrelated criminal proceedings that are Aeing adduced to prove the defendants4 status as
haAitual criminals or to enhance sentencing)L0N.M L0N"M :)*) v) Bauer, "9 0)3d 4%9 (&th Cir) "994'=
7rAy v) *tate, 4#9 *o) #d ""79 (<la) Crim) <pp) "9&3'= Beshears v) *tate, 3#9 <r5) 49, 947 *)?)#d
7&9 ("997'= *tate v) Bun5er, &9 Conn) <pp) %., &74 <)#d 3%" (#%%.', certification granted in part,
#7. Conn) 9%3, &&# <)#d 77 (#%%.'= Ging v) *tate, #4 @a) 3&, #7" *)()#d 3%, " 4 <m) Bur) #d
Budges K "7 <)6)+)4th .4. ("9&%'= *tate v) 9aduell, 3# *o) #d &#% (6a) "97'= ;eople v) ?illiams,
"9& 9ich) <pp) .37, 499 N)?)#d 4%4 ("993'= Cantrell v) *tate, .%7 *o) #d 3#. (9iss) "9&7'= ;eople
e1 rel) *tic5le v) 0ay, "4 N)>)#d &3, #49 N)>)*)#d &79, "9& N)()#d 9%9 ("94'= *atterlee v) *tate,
"97 $G C+ &&, .49 ;)#d "%4 ($5la) Crim) <pp) "97'= Com) v) $4*hea, .#3 ;a) 3&4, .7 <)#d "%#3
("9&9'= 9itchell v) Class, .#4 N)?)#d &% (*)D) "994'= Dean v) *tate, 93& *)?)#d 74 (/e1) <pp)
8ouston "4th Dist) "997'= Davis v) Com), #" -a) <pp) .&7, 4 *)()#d 74" ("99') L0N#M @oodspeed
v) Beto, 34" 0)#d 9%& (.th Cir) "9.'= *tate v) ?illiams, ."7 *o) #d "#& (6a) Ct) <pp) 4th Cir) "9&7',
Crit denied, .#% *o) #d 74& (6a) "9&&'= 9aloney v) 9a1Cell, "74 $hio *t) &4, #" $hio $p) #d 34",
"& N)()#d 7#& ("9#'= Com) v) $4*hea, .#3 ;a) 3&4, .7 <)#d "%#3 ("9&9'= NevareI v) *tate, &3#
*)?)#d &# (/e1) <pp) ?aco "99#', petition for discretionary revieC refused, (Nov) #., "99#'= *tate v)
Neeley, 74& ;)#d "%9" (:tah "9&&') L0N3M ;eople v) *mith, "#% <)D)#d 7.3, .%3 N)>)*)#d 7# (#d
Dep4t "9&') L0N4M Bordon v) *tate, #74 <r5) .7#, # *)?)#d 947 ("9&#'= *tate v) Zamora, "#9 7daho
&"7, 933 ;)#d "% ("997'= Dishman v) *tate, .#. N)()#d #&4 (7nd) "9&&'= Com) v) Carter, 7%" *)?)#d
4%9 (Gy) "9&.'= ;eople v) ;otter, "". 9ich) <pp) "#., 3#% N)?)#d 3"3 ("9&#'= ;eople v) Bones, "43
<)D)#d 4., .3# N)>)*)#d .& (3d Dep4t "9&&'= *tate v) ?arner, 49 *)?)#d .&% (/enn) "9&3'=
8athorne v) *tate, 4.9 *)?)#d &# (/e1) Crim) <pp) "97%') L0N.M CraCford v) *tate, & *o) #d "99
(<la) Crim) <pp) "99'= *incavage v) *uperior Court, 4# Cal) <pp) 4th ##4, 49 Cal) +ptr) #d ". ("st
Dist) "99'= @oines v) *tate, 7%& *o) #d . (0la) Dist) Ct) <pp) 4th Dist) "99&')
K "9) Duty of Eudge to dis3ualify self ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest,
Budges 5 39, .%, ."("' 0orms Certificates Ay Eudge dis3ualifying himself or herself) <m) Bur) ;leading
and ;ractice 0orms, Budges KK 9, 44 ConsentS$f EudgeS/o transfer cause to another Eudge) <m)
Bur) ;leading and ;ractice 0orms, Budges K 4 $rderSDesignating pro tem EudgeS$n voluntary
dis3ualification of regular EudgeS*tipulation Ay parties to trial Eudge) <m) Bur) ;leading and ;ractice
0orms, Budges K .. $rderSDesignating pro tem EudgeS$n re3uest of dis3ualified EudgeS
/emporary transfer from other Eudicial circuit) <m) Bur) ;leading and ;ractice 0orms, Budges K . <
Eudge has a duty to self dis3ualify himself or herself as soon as he or she is aCare that legal grounds
therefor e1ist)L0N"M /he preEudice must Ae such that the defendant cannot receive a trial uninfluenced
Ay the court4s preEudgment,L0N#M a decision left to the court4s reasonaAle discretion)L0N3M /he Eudge
need not state the reasons for the recusal)L0N4M < Eudge may self dis3ualify Chere he or she harAors
actual preEudice in the caseL0N.M or has Aeen personally attac5ed=L0NM Chenever the Eudge4s
conduct is not aAove reproach=L0N7M or Chere disciplinary charges related to the case have Aeen filed
against the Eudge)L0N&M :nder the Code of Budicial Conduct, a Eudge shall dis3ualify himself or
herself Chere:L0N9M 4 <m) Bur) #d Budges K "9 ("' the Eudge4s impartiality might reasonaAly Ae
3uestioned, such as Chere the Eudge has a personal Aias against an attorney or a party or has a
personal interest in the matter= (#' Chere the Eudge served as a laCyer or Cas a material Citness
regarding the matter= (3' Chere a relationship of the Eudge is a party, attorney, or material Citness or
has a material interest in the matter= or (4' Chere the Eudge 5noCs that a party or attorney made
significant contriAutions to the Eudge4s campaign) (ven Chen the canons do not re3uire recusal, a
Eudge may recuse himself or herself)L 0N"%M <n appellate Eudge may properly recuse himself or
- 50-
1
2
herself only from consideration of a particular issue in a case and may consider other issues severaAle
from that re3uiring recusal)L 0N""M *ua sponte recusal is unnecessary if the parties consent to the
Eudge hearing the case)L0N"#M 7t is as much the duty of a trial Eudge not to self recuse Chen there are
insufficient grounds to do so as it is to self recuse Chen there are grounds to do so)L0N"3M
C:9:6</7-( *:;;6(9(N/ Cases: Budge4s participation in disposition of defendant4s criminal
case Cas not an oAvious or clear error that affected defendant4s suAstantial rights, and thus Eudge Cas
not re3uired to sua sponte recuse himself for Aias under recusal statute) #& :)*)C)<) K 4..(A') :)*) v)
Bohnson, &% 0)3d 9 (7th Cir) #%"#') /o deter unhappy litigants from aAusing recusal statute and to
promote faith in Eudicial system, Eudge has as much oAligation not to recuse himself Chere there is no
reason to do so as he does to recuse himself Chen proper) #& :)*)C)<) K 4..(a') *)()C) v) BilIerian,
7#9 0) *upp) #d "9 (D)D)C) #%"%') < Eudge may voluntarily dis3ualify himself from presiding over a
hearing for any reason at all) +ules Civ);roc), +ule 4%(d'(4') ?oods v) *anders, #44 ;)3d "97 (7daho
#%"%') /o avoid raising reasonaAle 3uestions aAout their impartiality, Eudges must dis3ualify
themselves from matters involving parties or attorneys Cith Chom they have discussed future
employment, Aoth Chen discussions lead to a future relationship and Chen they do not) Canon 3(C'
("' of the Code of Budicial Conduct) DeNi5e v) Cupo, "9 N)B) .%#, 9.& <)#d 44 (#%%&') L(ND $0
*:;;6(9(N/M L0N"M ;ope v) *tate, #.7 @a) 3#, 3.4 *)()#d 4#9 ("9&7') <s to Eudge4s responsiAility
to disclose any potential conflict, see K &%) <s to self recusal in federal court, see <m) Bur) #d, 0ederal
Courts K 47) L0N#M -autrot v) ?est, #7# @a) <pp) 7"., "3 *)()#d "9 (#%%.') L0N3M 7n re 9arriage of
@oellner, 77% ;)#d "3&7 (Colo) Ct) <pp) "9&9') L0N4M *tate e1 rel) 9osshammer v) <llen *uperior
Court No) 3, #4 7nd) 3, #% N)()#d "39 ("9.') L0N.M 0loCers v) *tate, 73& N)()#d "%." (7nd)
#%%%') L0NM Coo5e v) :)*), #7 :)*) ."7, 4. *) Ct) 39%, 9 6) (d) 77 ("9#.') L0N7M 7n 7nterest of
9orroC, 4%% ;a) *uper) 339, .&3 <)#d &" ("99%') L0N&M *tate v) 8unt, "47 -t) 3", .#7 <)#d ##3
("9&7') L0N9M Code of Budicial Conduct Canon 3() L0N"%M *cheehle v) Bustices of the *upreme Court
of the *tate of <riIona, #"" <riI) #&#, "#% ;)3d "%9# (#%%.') L0N""M 0lorida ;atient4s Compensation
0und v) -on *tetina, 474 *o) #d 7&3 (0la) "9&.') L0N"#M *tate v) $rtiI, &3 Conn) <pp) "4#, &4& <)#d
"#4 (#%%4', certification denied, #7% Conn) 9"., &.3 <)#d .3% (#%%4') <s to Caiver of
dis3ualification Ay consent, see K #"") L0N"3M <le1ander v) *tate, #%%. ?6 #9793"3 (@a) Ct) <pp)
#%%.') T #%"# /homson +euters) 33234B T #%"# /homson +euters!+7<) No Claim to $rig) :)*)
@ovt) ?or5s) <ll rights reserved) <9B:+ B:D@(* K "9
K "7%) Duty of Eudge to dis3ualify selfS?here Eudge is called as a Citness ?est4s Gey NumAer Digest ?est4s
Gey NumAer Digest, Budges 5 .%, ."("' 0orms CertificateSBy EudgeSDis3ualifying himself or herself) <m) Bur)
;leading and ;ractice 0orms, Budges K 9 < Eudge Cho Cill Ae called as a Citness for either party should, if he or she has
ade3uate notice, certify his or her dis3ualification Chere necessary and ma5e Chatever necessary arrangements to have
another Eudge presiding at the trial)L0N"M 7f notice is insufficient to ma5e such an arrangement, the Eudge should refuse to
testify as a Citness in the case,L0N#M at least on matters that can Ae proved Ay another Citness)L0N3M L0N"M Brashier v)
*tate, "97 9iss) #37, #% *o) #d ., ".7 <)6)+) 3"" ("944'= Gennedy v) *tate, .9 $5la) Crim) "", .. ;)#d 79# ("93')
L0N#M Brashier v) *tate, "97 9iss) #37, #% *o) #d ., ".7 <)6)+) 3"" ("944') L0N3M Gennedy v) *tate, .9 $5la) Crim) "",
.. ;)#d 79# ("93') 0or dis3ualification of a Eudge as a Citness, see KK 99 to "%") T #%"# /homson +euters) 33234B T
#%"# /homson +euters!+7<) No Claim to $rig) :)*) @ovt) ?or5s) <ll rights reserved) <9B:+ B:D@(* K "7%
N+* 33)#&%(#' declares that a court may not issue a /emporary or (1tended $rder for ;rotecX
tion <gainst 8arassment in the ?or5place that is against more than one person) <rguaAly, +;D DeX
tective and +9C Budge ?) @ardner4s interpretation of the language in Aoth the /;$ and the (;$
Chich purport to limit Coughlin4s aAility to have a filing, suApoena, or some other legal document
served or delivered to or on the *BN or its Cler5 of Court in any manner other than through the
Q:nited *tates 9ailY is violative of such a statutory prohiAition Chere such a restriction in those ;roX
tection $rders essentially amounts to the orders Aeing Qagainst more than one personY)
- 51-
1
2
8urther, -9C *aiiff Engish's purported :P-OO8 O8 SE-;ICE +PON (<;E-SE
P(-TY= fais to satisfy the N-CP 5 re>uirements in that it fais to that that Engish is :o)er /?
years of age= and fais to indicate that he is a 'non%paty=, @homsoe)er may thin" that #e an
utra technica approach might re)ie! 9udge Eiott's and (dam's !or" in disposing of CoughA
in's a!suits against @ashoe Lega Ser)ices in C;//%4/?1B, and against @ashoe Lega SerA
)ices, C((@, and T@S in C;//%4/177, referencing .arin's citation to :actua ser)ice does not
e'cuse the faiure to technicay compy !ith ser)ice rues= approach, (t east Coughin !as
not ha)ing court staff, Marshas, and *aiiff's 6a##ing there forearms into @LS's Ecano's a#A
domen and thrusting this or that document attempted ser)ed into his face, inside the courtA
house, !hie he !as at the courthouse to attend court, in a matter su#stantiay connected to the
su#6ect matter from !hich the document purported to #e then ser)ed stemmed
/he (;$ in %7 is void for Ging and the *BN4s failure to meet a variety of Eurisdictional preX
re3uisites, including the failure to file an (;$ <pplication as re3uired Ay N+* 33)#7%) <s such, the
alleged violations Ay Couglin in the (;$ Complaint in 39"4 should fail (Aeyond the fact that the
allged activity, fa1ing a filing (li5ely a post2hearing or post20$0C$6!3uasi2 QDecisionY 9otion' to
the *BN4s Cler5 of Court Chere *C+ "%.(4', NNDB *usich4s 7!#7!"# email to Coughlin, and *BN
Cler5 of Court ;eters e1press indications to Couglin on 9!""!"# (Chich Cere never countered or disX
puted, Chether in ;eters "%!9!"# <ffidavit of 6aura ;eters, any of her emails to Coughlin, or any
statements Ay Ging or the *BN or $BC or NNDB!;anel, though, upon information and Aelief, the
*BN!$BC4s +ose Cota has admitted that the *BN!$BC has accepted filings Ay fa1 in disciplinary
matters as Cell) 0urther, Ging and the *BN failed to file the re3uired security:
?or5place 8arassment /;$RsS/he *ecurity +e3uirement N+* 33)#7%(#' declares that a
/emporary $rder for protection against harassment in the Cor5place Qmust not Ae issued Cithout the
giving of security Ay the employer in an amount determined Ay the court to Ae sufficient to pay for
such costs and damages as may Ae incurred or suffered Ay the person Cho allegedly committed the
harassment if the person Cho allegedly committed the harassment is found to have Aeen Crongfully
enEoined or restrained)Y /he <$C /;$ 0orms Committee set the amount of the security as H"%%)%%
cash)
<lso, Ging is not aAle to sign the declaration or verify either a /;$ or (;$ application, it
must Ae an QofficerY of the *BN)
$nly in the conte1t of ?or5place /;$Rs is one specific interpretation e1plicit) *ee N+*
33)#7%(.' (Q< temporary order for protection against harassment in the Cor5place that is granted,
Cith or Cithout notice, must e1pire not later than ". days after the date on Chich the order is issued) )
) )Y') L(mphasis addedM)
*C+ +uleZ""4)ZZ+eciprocal discipline)
4)ZZ7D(N/7C<6 D7*C7;67N( /$ B( 79;$*(D= (UC(;/7$N*)ZZ<0/(+ /8( /79( 0$+
/8( <//$+N(> /$ +(*;$ND 8<* (U;7+(D, /8( *:;+(9( C$:+/ *8<66 79;$*( /8(
- 52-
Dated 6/25/13 /s/ Zach Coughlin