Tigges v. Andrews

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction but denied a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking disqualification and reassignment of the trial judge after a partial appellate reversal. The Court held that 20 O.S. § 95.10 authorizes, but does not require, reassignment and that reversal alone is insufficient to establish grounds for judicial disqualification absent evidence of bias, prejudice, conflict of interest, lack of objectivity, appearance of impropriety, or similar grounds.

Holdings

1. Section 95.10(B) does not give a party an automatic right to remove the assigned district judge merely because the party no longer consents to that judge's assignment. Management of judicial assignments is a constitutional power vested in the judiciary.
2. An applicant seeking reassignment under § 95.10(A) must identify evidence in the original appellate record supporting judicial disqualification, including evidence of bias, prejudice, conflict of interest, lack of objectivity, appearance of impropriety, manifest disregard for the law, or comparable evidence that the judge is not fair and objective.
3. Mere reversal of a lower court's dispositive rulings does not, standing alone, provide a sufficient basis for disqualification of the trial judge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court should assume original jurisdiction over petitioners' application for a writ of mandamus seeking disqualification of the assigned district judge.
2. Whether 20 O.S. 2011 § 95.10(B) automatically requires reassignment of a district judge after reversal on appeal when the parties do not agree that the same judge may continue presiding.
3. Whether the partial reversal of the district judge's summary-judgment ruling, without independent evidence of bias or other disqualifying conduct, warranted judicial disqualification.

Disposition

writ_denied