denying petition because “[d]isqualifying a judge because his examination of a witness on relevant matters gives a clue as to how he may be inclined to rule at the end of the evidence would wreak administrative havoc in the circuit court by inviting mid-hearing motions for recusal”
How later courts described this case
- denying petition because “[d]isqualifying a judge because his examination of a witness on relevant matters gives a clue as to how he may be inclined to rule at the end of the evidence would wreak administrative havoc in the circuit court by inviting mid-hearing motions for recusal”
- recognizing that judges are “expected to be influenced by real life experiences”
- noting disbelief in witness’ testimony is ordinarily no basis for disqualification
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM.
Motion for rehearing en banc denied.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART, NESBITT, FERGUSON, JORGENSON, COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ., concur.