Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court denied reconsideration of an order denying a motion to recuse several justices and denying an evidentiary hearing. Justice Weaver did not participate in reconsideration concerning the other justices but stated that, under MCR 2.003(3), denials of recusal motions should be reviewed de novo by the chief judge or a judge assigned by the state court administrator.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Michigan Supreme Court should reconsider its order denying Gilbert's motions for recusal and for an evidentiary hearing.
- Whether MCR 2.003(3) applies to the Michigan Supreme Court and requires de novo review of a justice's denial of a recusal motion.
Holdings
- The motion for reconsideration was denied because the court's prior order did not appear to have been entered erroneously.
Key quotations
“it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.” (560)
“The procedure in MCR 2.003(3) for review of the denial of the motion for recusal should be followed in this case, as plaintiff has now requested.” (562)
Factual background
Gilbert sought the recusal of Chief Justice Corrigan, Justice Weaver, and Justices Taylor, Young, and Markman from the underlying appeal. She also requested an evidentiary hearing concerning their participation. The challenged justices denied recusal, and Gilbert sought reconsideration and review of those decisions.
Procedural history
The Michigan Supreme Court had granted DaimlerChrysler's application for leave to appeal and later entered an order denying Gilbert's motion to recuse the Chief Justice and several justices, as well as her request for an evidentiary hearing. Gilbert moved for reconsideration and alternatively asked the court to apply Michigan Court Rule 2.003(3)'s de novo review procedure. On October 30, 2003, the court denied reconsideration because the prior order did not appear to have been entered erroneously.