finding a single panel member’s bias sufficient to taint the entire panel even in a unanimous vote and noting that "on a small board ... a single person's bias is likely to have a profound impact on the decisionmaking process”
How later courts described this case
- finding a single panel member’s bias sufficient to taint the entire panel even in a unanimous vote and noting that "on a small board ... a single person's bias is likely to have a profound impact on the decisionmaking process”
- holding that reports of derogatory statements by an adjudicator about the applicant while the application was pending before the Board, standing alone, was clearly insufficient to demonstrate actual bias
- noting that if a disqualifying conflict were found "based solely on the fact that there may on occasion be 'some' competition for clients" between the practitioner-decisionmaker's company and the company with a matter pending before the licensing board, "[it] would call into question the composition" of numerous boards across various industries
- vacating unanimous decision because of bias of one panel member; “plaintiff need not demonstrate that the biased member’s vote was decisive or that his views influenced those of other members. Whether actual or apparent, bias on the part of a single member of a tribunal taints the proceedings.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOONAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the opinion and judgment of the court except that I do not believe it appropriate in Part II B1 for the court to speculate as to the existence of a genuine issue as to the appearance of bias and as to the facts Stivers might conceivably prove; I do not believe that Stivers has shown that Rodefer’s report was the result of any decision by the Board to harass him; in Part IV A2 n. 9, the court has mistakenly expanded Sablan, 856 F.2d at 1827 by prefacing the quote from Sabían with the words “if prior to the assertion of the plaintiffs claim;” and under Fairar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 , -, 113 S.Ct. 566, 575 , 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992) the plaintiffs in the plural are not entitled to any counsel fees because only Stivers achieved success.