Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

recusatio judicis

Read a random definition: maritime-connection doctrine

A quick definition of recusatio judicis:

Recusatio judicis: A rule that allows someone to ask a judge to step down from a case if they have a personal connection to one of the parties involved, if they have taken a bribe, or if they don't know enough about the law. A group of three people will decide if the request is reasonable.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Recusatio judicis is a Latin term used in Ecclesiastical law to refer to the procedure and grounds by which a judge may be challenged and removed from hearing a case. The grounds for disqualification traditionally include:

  • Great friendship or enmity with a party
  • Close kinship to a party
  • Acceptance of a bribe
  • Previously giving counsel to a party
  • Demonstrated ignorance of the law

A panel of three arbiters, chosen by the challenging party and the judge, decides whether the party's complaint has merit.

Example: If a judge is assigned to a case where they have a close personal relationship with one of the parties involved, they may be challenged through recusatio judicis. Similarly, if a judge has previously given legal advice to one of the parties, they may also be challenged. In both cases, the judge's impartiality may be called into question, and the challenging party may request that the judge be removed from the case.

Explanation: The examples illustrate how recusatio judicis can be used to ensure that a judge is impartial and unbiased in a case. If a judge has a personal relationship with one of the parties or has previously given legal advice to them, they may be more likely to favor that party in their decision-making. By allowing a challenging party to request the judge's removal, the legal system can ensure that justice is served fairly and without bias.

recusant | recusation

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
17:35
@LawIsForPeasants: while charlie kirk's facts do not care about your feelings, just know that I do!
texaslawhopefully
17:36
@Dkk: Fair enough, but if you're using political philosophy to defend Trump, it's hard to reconcile him as a candidate with very relevant classic political theory, like Locke's individual rights and limited government as illustrated in the 2nd treatise, or the constitutional framework limiting executive power (e.g., Federalist 51). Trump's disregard for constitutional checks and populist rhetoric directly is in tension with our very foundational principles.
Dkk
17:36
@SplitterusClitterus: sounds good. Trying to paint a wine glass rn anyway after I just woke up.
Dkk
17:37
@texaslawhopefully: Psssh I would not use gender relations as a way to defend Trump. He does not go that route and I think literally him and everyone in their cabinet has no idea what those are. I mean, just look at how many divorces Elon and Trump have had.
texaslawhopefully
17:38
Was that not why you said you voted for him?
17:38
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: can I ask what “2 years retroactive withdrawals” means
17:39
elon and trump realize there are many fish in the sea, and sometimes u can't just 'make it work'
@sadpadresfan: grades changed to W for two consecutive years of classes
Dkk
17:39
Nah, I did not vote. I have never voted in my life because I have a lot of issues with it. 4 years ago my mom filled out my ballot for me because she wanted to but I do not vote.
17:40
based fellow non voter
@llama i do not need or desire external validation.
17:40
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: ah I see
17:41
@LawIsForPeasants: ok, sorry, I will not bother u while u 'self validate yourself in the corner' my bad.
@llama: im self validating so hard rn
17:42
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: thats very ithica of you, wasp.
texaslawhopefully
17:44
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: Out of curiosity, since you're in law school and prolly know fedsoc people, how conservative do you think you have to be to be in fedsoc? Like is a david french sort of conservative fairly common in it, or is it the maga type people mainly
i dont interact with any fedsoc people, but i dont know any maga people at cornell. but the student body overwhelmingly leans left, so i think they might not be comfortable showing that theyre conservative if that makes sense?
one time a guy kind of crashed out about masks in conlaw
but that's the most ive seen
texaslawhopefully
17:47
Yeah, that does make sense. I would like to join fedsoc, but I'm also, clearly, very opposed to Trump and where the GOP has gone.
if you join fedsoc and go for clerking and eventually become a judge. you will be pinholed into maga politics as long as maga is the predominant conservative stance
Idk if @irishdinosaur is online but congrats on UCLA!!
next you will say you want to be the first black kkk grand wizard
@SaddestPortlander: tysm!!!!
texaslawhopefully
18:00
yes congrats irishdinosaur! that's incredible
18:03
@IrishDinosaur: you inspire me and my completely misguided cope that I might ever get into UCLA
Super big congrats irish!!!
Also pretty much agree with Wasp. I think it’s more about getting the political/judicial position as a Fedsoc member that will likely require a stance siding with whatever the conservative majority party is at that time.
texaslawhopefully
18:07
Yeah, that's fair. I guess I need to think about it more assuming I start law school in the fall. I really want to clerk and that seems like the best option.
BUT i think once you get the position, you’ll have more leeway in making decisions more liberally. Sort of like how ACB and Gorsuch sometimes swing left after being portreayed in the media as far right (not sure if that was actually the case though).
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.