McCarthy v. Scofield

784 N.W.2d 57 (Mich. 2010) · Supreme Court of Michigan · July 19, 2010 · No. 140328

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court addresses statements by four justices denying Patrick McCarthy’s motions to disqualify them from participating in the case. The statements reject allegations of bias and improper relationships with defendants, while Justice Markman additionally criticizes Michigan’s disqualification procedures and expresses concern regarding MCL 28.243. The document discusses the potential for frivolous disqualification motions to delay the Court’s work and politicize the process.

Court
Supreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the Court
Weaver, J.; Corrigan, J.; Young, J.; Markman, J.
Jurisdiction
Michigan
Decision date
July 19, 2010
Docket number
140328
Procedural posture
Plaintiff moved to disqualify four Michigan Supreme Court justices from participating in the case. The challenged justices issued separate statements denying the motions.
Precedential value
precedential
Parties
Patrick McCarthy v. Alison Scofield, Department of Human Services, Andrea Dean, Oakland County Prosecutor, Carole Boyd, Oakland County Friend of the Court, Thomas Callahan, Milford Police Department, Amy Allen, Child Abuse & Neglect House/Oakland County Care House
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

appellate procedurecivil procedurejudicial disqualification

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Justices Weaver, Corrigan, Young, and Markman should be disqualified from participating in the case based on plaintiff's allegations of bias or relationships with defendants.

Holdings

  1. The motions to disqualify Justices Weaver, Corrigan, Young, and Markman were denied because plaintiff's allegations were unsupported and did not establish a basis for disqualification.

Key quotations

For these reasons, I deny his motion to disqualify me from participation. (57)
Thus, a disqualification procedure that worked on this Court for 175 years to ensure honest and accountable decision-making, and that reflects the practices of the United States Supreme Court, and those of virtually every other state supreme court in the nation from the beginning of the republic, has been replaced by a procedure whose legacy will almost certainly prove to be the incentivization of frivolous disqualification motions, politicization of the disqualification process, and the diversion of the attentions of this Court from its primary responsibilities on behalf of the people of this state. (58)

Factual background

Patrick McCarthy alleged that four Michigan Supreme Court justices had improper political, social, or business relationships with governmental and child-welfare defendants and were biased against him. The challenged justices denied having the alleged relationships or any other disqualifying interest. Justice Markman additionally stated that the motion did not establish any basis for disqualification under Michigan Court Rule 2.003.

Procedural history

The matter was pending before the Michigan Supreme Court after an underlying case identified by Court of Appeals docket number 284129. Plaintiff sought disqualification of Justices Weaver, Corrigan, Young, and Markman based on alleged political, social, or business relationships with defendants. Each challenged justice denied the motion, concluding that the allegations were unsupported and that no other basis for disqualification existed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…