# Morgan County Commission v. Powell

> Supreme Court of Alabama · April 4, 1974 · 292 Ala. 300

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695193

## Case

- **Full name:** MORGAN COUNTY COMMISSION Et Al. v. Judge Newton B. POWELL Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** April 4, 1974
- **Citations:** 292 Ala. 300; 293 So. 2d 830; 1974 Ala. LEXIS 1067
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jones
- **Judges:** Bloodworth, Coleman, Faulkner, Harwood, Heflin, Jones, Maddox, McCALL, Merrill
- **Cited by:** 64 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695193

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that when other branches of government are remiss in their constitutional duties, the judiciary must act

## Opinion text

JONES, Justice
(concurring specially).
My concurrence with the majority opinion is limited to the single issue of the denial of the motion of recusal. Paramount to any system of justice is the total impartiality of the court which sits in judgment of any controversy. The appearance of fairness is virtually as important as is fairness itself. One of the essential ingredients of an effective judiciary is the high level of respect accorded it by the citizenry. Except for the impartiality of those who occupy the role of judge, both in act and appearance, the level of respect necessary to a strong and effective judiciary will fail. It is the essence of the system that any position of interest or bias is sufficient cause for disqualification of a judge, and the right to raise and insist upon the causes of disqualification must be zealously guarded. The participation of the appellees in the attempted selection of the secretaries, the fixing of the salaries, and their natural interests in the outcome of the litigation clearly disqualified the judges in the instant case from proceeding to an adjudication of the matter. The motion of recusal should have been granted.
I feel strongly that the remaining portion of the majority opinion is an unfortunate step backward in judicial administration and a crippling blow to the separate and equal concept of our three branches of government. I am in complete agreement with the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Heflin.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695193. Public record. Not legal advice.