The Missing Opinion and Why it’s Important that it Be Restored on the 5th Circuit Website
Update: As at May 10th, 2020, the Fifth Circuit has refused to correct the missing opinion. It is standard practice to post any and all changes by adding an addendum number to the opinion. So for example; the missing May opinion would be 14-40994.0 and the new updated version in September would be 14-40994.1.
This example can be proven if you look at the Burkes case from a 2015 appeal where the panel issued its first opinion wrongfully stating that Deutsche Bank National Trust Co was the mortgage servicer and lower court magistrate judge Stephen Wm. Smith had to write to the court and ask for reconsideration and correction. In the first opinion, it was 15-20201.0 and the updated version; 15-20201.1.
It is interesting to note this detailed opinion, which discusses and cites relevant case law as regards judicial recusal is now absent from the 5th Circuit opinion search, replaced by a one-liner order in September, by a new-ish panel. We say new-ish because and notably, the new panel retains Judge Catharina Haynes from the original May 2015 panel.
Garcia v. City of Laredo, No. 14-40994 (5th Cir., May 18, 2015)
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a judge “shall disqualify [herself] in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and also where her spouse “[i]s known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) & (b)(5)(iii).
The issue of recusal can affect rulings issued by the judge.See Patterson v. Mobil Oil Corp., 335 F.3d 476, 485 (5th Cir. 2003) (explaining circumstances under which reversal or vacation of orders entered by judge who should have recused is appropriate).”
Garcia v. City of Laredo, No. 14-40994, at *2 (5th Cir. 2015)
Garcia v. City of Laredo, No. 14-40994 (5th Cir., Sept. 17, 2015)
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction there being no appealable judgment.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
ETHICAL INTRICACIES OF THE ATTORNEY/JUDGE RELATIONSHIP: WHAT’S O.K. AND WHAT’S NOT* (2003)
*This is a restructured and modified version of a paper distributed on May 2, 2003 at the Dallas Bar Association CLE program on “The Ethics of Lawyer-Judge Interactions” presented by The Honorable Catharina Haynes, The Honorable Karen Johnson, The Honorable Jeff Kaplan, and James L. Mitchell, Jr., Esq.
“We Judge ourselves by our best intentions, our most
noble acts, and our most virtuous habits. We are judged
by our last, worst act.”
~Michael Josephson~
“Be the change you want to see.”
~Gandhi~
![DONATE TO THE LAST STAND](https://cdn.lawsintexas.com/cb:Eo5i~20d8c/w:350/h:350/q:eco/f:best/ig:avif/https://lawsintexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/LITAMOLASTSTAND-1.png")
