“This Court is committed to the doctrine that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. It is the duty of Courts to scrupulously guard this right and to refrain from attempting to exercise jurisdiction in any matter where his qualification to do so is seriously brought in question. The exercise of any other policy tends to discredit the judiciary and shadow the administration of justice.”
How later courts described this case
- “This Court is committed to the doctrine that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. It is the duty of Courts to scrupulously guard this right and to refrain from attempting to exercise jurisdiction in any matter where his qualification to do so is seriously brought in question. The exercise of any other policy tends to discredit the judiciary and shadow the administration of justice.”
- “[E]very litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.”
- applying Parks in the context of a nonjury proceeding
- “[Ejvery litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial [court].”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Thomas, J.
(dissenting). — I agree whole-heartedly with the observations of the learned Chief Justice on the importance of fair trials by impartial judges but I feel that the relator has completely failed to comply with the rules which the Legislature has prescribed to disqualify judges on the ground of prejudice; therefore, I dissent.