Of course not. It would destroy objectivity. Once a case is over, it may be permissible, but even then a wise person would wait for a period of time. * It depends upon how the term "relationship" is defined. Depending upon the size of the municipality and the type of court involved it is not unusual for judges to interact with attorneys outside the courtroom. This does not mean a conflict of interest would occur when a judge presides over a case where he or she is familiar with one or both attorneys. It is however, improper and illegal for a judge to meet with either of the attorneys to discuss an active case unless opposing counsel is present. On the other side, if a judge is acquainted with the plaintiff or defendant, the rules of professional conduct and the law, requires he or she excuse themselves from the case to avoid the appearance of being prejudicial.
Wiki User
∙ 2006-04-26 19:24:28If a judge has not made a decision, the plaintiff and their attorney can drop, or settle, the tort. However, once a judge has made a decision, the judge's decision is upheld by law, and the plaintiff has no say.
The plaintiff cannot - that is a judge's prerogative. The plaintiff can REQUEST that a judge consider ruling that way, but it is up to the judge as to whether he will grant it or not.
If the judge dismisses the case, the plaintiff is responsible for the court costs.
Also, known as the plaintiff is the person who brings up a lawsuit against the defendant. This person must prove there case to a judge in a court of law. It is the plaintiff responsible to argue his complaint to the judge.
actually when you go on Judge Judy both the defendant and the plaintiff get money from judge judy just to be on the show then when somebody wins ,ex: plaintiff wins the case, the defendant has to give over his money that he got from judge judy. Basically judge pays for all of the winners
Anytime a judge has a conflict of interest in a lawsuit he should recuse himself. Reasons a plaintiff can ask for recusal include the judge is related to, is a friend of or a business partner with defendant. Or if the lawsuit is against a company the judge has invested in and a judgment against the company might harm his investment. Or that the judge had worked with defendant's law firm or been partner's together. Or that there had been some altercation or disagreement between plaintiff or plaintiff's lawyer and the judge do that it might appear that the judge would be prejudiced against the plaintiff. Lawyers and judges are expected not only to avoid improprieties like those but also to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. This means that even if an investigation into an alleged conflict of interest shows no actual conflict of interest, the judge should probably recuse himself if it appears to be a conflict.
Anytime a judge has a conflict of interest in a lawsuit he should recuse himself. Reasons a plaintiff can ask for recusal include the judge is related to, is a friend of or a business partner with defendant. Or if the lawsuit is against a company the judge has invested in and a judgment against the company might harm his investment. Or that the judge had worked with defendant's law firm or been partner's together. Or that there had been some altercation or disagreement between plaintiff or plaintiff's lawyer and the judge do that it might appear that the judge would be prejudiced against the plaintiff. Lawyers and judges are expected not only to avoid improprieties like those but also to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. This means that even if an investigation into an alleged conflict of interest shows no actual conflict of interest, the judge should probably recuse himself if it appears to be a conflict.
By use of the description "plaintiff" the questioner indicates that the case is a civil proceeding. In this instance if the plaintiff is opposed to a continuance they should object to the motion for continuance, then, it would be up to the judge to decide if the continuance was to be granted.
The Plaintiff and Defendant are just regular people needing answers. The people who get paid are the Judge and the police officer.
Generally, the plaintiff in a civil case has the burden of proof. The plaintiff must provide enough evidence to convince a judge or jury that her claim should succeed and she should be awarded damages.
It will be up to the judge in the case if a telephonic hearing is allowed in MI.
If the Plaintiff or the Prosecutor disagreed with the judge's decision to dismiss the charges against the plaintiff/defendant, they might characterize the judge's decision as "unjust" meaning they did not agree with the judge's legal reasoning for doing so. OR -- in an employment situation -- it might refer to the dismissal of an empolyee under conditions that were not according to prevailing law or procedure.