0
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.
What else can I help you with?
Can a plaintiff drop a tort in a civil case?
If 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.
Who pays plaintiff on judge judy?
On "Judge Judy," the plaintiff's payment typically comes from the defendant if the judge rules in favor of the plaintiff. However, the show pays the awarded amount upfront to the plaintiff, and the defendant is responsible for reimbursing the show's production company. This arrangement ensures that the plaintiff receives their awarded judgment immediately, regardless of the defendant's ability to pay.
Who pays court costs when plaintiff files a fraudulent case and the judge throws the case out.?
If the judge dismisses the case, the plaintiff is responsible for the court costs.
When can the plantiff dismiss a case without prejudice?
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.
In a Civil Case the party who brings a case against a Defendant is called?
In a criminal case it is the accuser. In a civil case - think Judge Judy - it is the Plaintiff
What does this mean - judge ruled for the plaintiff - defendant appealed - plaintiff cross-appealed - final verdict for the plaintiff?
In this scenario, the judge initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, meaning the court found in their favor regarding the case. The defendant then appealed the decision, seeking to overturn the ruling. The plaintiff cross-appealed, potentially challenging aspects of the ruling they felt were unfavorable. Ultimately, the final verdict upheld the initial ruling for the plaintiff, confirming their victory in the case.
What does a complainant do in law?
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.
What is the relationship between plaintiff to the judicial branch?
The plaintiff is an individual or entity that initiates a lawsuit in a court, seeking legal remedy for a perceived wrong. Within the judicial branch, the plaintiff's role is to present their case, provide evidence, and argue their position before a judge or jury. The judicial branch, in turn, is responsible for interpreting the law, adjudicating disputes, and ensuring justice is served based on the merits of the plaintiff's claims and the evidence presented.
Are there any circumstances in which a plaintiff in a civil matter can ask a judge to recuse him- or herself?
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.
Are there any circumstances in which a plaintiff in a civil matter can ask a judge to recuse him or herself?
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.
When Judge Judy awards monies do they actually get paid the amount due?
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
What if the plaintiff is opposed to a continuance?
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.
