tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5077774759289052226.post8370160481248819377..comments2024-03-18T14:09:39.985-05:00Comments on Bench and Bar Experiences: Judges and The Code of Judicial Conduct - Ex Parte CommunicationsJohn DiMottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15521940768659333581noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5077774759289052226.post-48306658456986522342015-10-10T08:15:33.126-05:002015-10-10T08:15:33.126-05:00Your hypothetical has many parts and lacking speci...Your hypothetical has many parts and lacking specifics so it is difficult to answer. However, here are some thoughts: Usually a dismissal based on a stipulation is subject to a motion to reopen if either party brings such a motion based on what the party believes is a violation of the terms of the dismissal. The court would then hear the motion and decide. Competence to act is ordinarily not impeded by a stipulation. If the alleged violation of the stipulation would consititute new grounds for a new petition a party could potentially file a new petition. John DiMottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15521940768659333581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5077774759289052226.post-13929802940982924162015-10-09T09:36:10.406-05:002015-10-09T09:36:10.406-05:00During a civil procedure, under 813 if both partie...During a civil procedure, under 813 if both parties move for dismissal of their 813.125 for a stipulation agreement and their agreement is silent on any remedy if either party violated the contract. Can the court reopen the dismissed cases or does the court lose competence to hear the two cases. Secondly, does the court have the to interject himself into the meeting of the minds of the two parties when neither part asked for such a remedy. Lastly, if one or both parties continued to violate 813.125 by your blog what we are reading is that the only way that the court could have subject and personal jurisdiction is by filing a new petition under 813.125 on new allegations and the dismissed petitions are forever terminated and the court would not have any jurisdiction on the dismissed cases. This question is for research and school and is in regards to something we seen in a court proceeding as a bystanderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5077774759289052226.post-9664452107199355542013-06-08T07:36:03.365-05:002013-06-08T07:36:03.365-05:00It is incumbent upon a judge to set forth the reas...It is incumbent upon a judge to set forth the reasons and legal basis for his or her decision. This is done by setting forth the judges findings of fact and conclusion of law that flows from those findings of fact which ultimately lead to the decision reached.John DiMottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15521940768659333581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5077774759289052226.post-33328382744798976412013-06-04T23:08:52.920-05:002013-06-04T23:08:52.920-05:00At the trial court level, especially in non-jury s...At the trial court level, especially in non-jury settings such as probate, when the judge refuses to state his legal reasoning for a decision, it leads to greater mistrust rather than less. People read appellate cases for the understanding of legal issues. Sometimes the decision is correct; sometimes not. But in either case, when no basis for a decision is given, one wonders about bias. Judges are human and make mistakes. But unless one can follow a legal argument, one cannot accept the decision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com