PATRICK M. ARCEMENT Vs. CHERI LYNN CRUZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

PATRICK M. ARCEMENT * NO. 2002-C-2533 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL CHERI LYNN CRUZ * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA * * ******* ON APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO ST. BERNARD 34TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 77-122, DIVISION “B” Honorable Manuel A. Fernandez, Judge ****** Judge Max N. Tobias Jr. ****** (Court composed of Judge Joan Bernard Armstrong, Judge Miriam G. Waltzer, and Judge Max N. Tobias Jr.) Sharon M. Williams 2008 Fazzio Road P. O. Box 1654 Chalmette, LA 70044-1654 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RELATOR Keith Couture 9061 West Judge Perez Drive Suite 2A P. O. Box 2291 Chalmette, LA 70044-2291 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT SUPERVISORY WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF GRANTED; STAY VACATED. Once a judge recuses himself or herself from hearing a case, the judge is thereafter precluded from hearing that case ever again. Schwing v. Dunlap, 123 La. 485, 49 So. 134, 136 (La. 1909). In this case, the trial judge recused himself sua sponte on 16 September 2002 and gave reasons. See La. C.C.P. art. 152. The judge stated that because relator’s counsel was a candidate against him and relator was her campaign manager, the appearance of impropriety required his recusal “to promote, protect and preserve the independence and integrity of the judiciary by the Canons of Judicial Conduct.” Now that the campaign and election are over is of no moment; the taint of the appearance of impropriety permanently remains. In re Lemoine, 96-2116 (La. 1/14/97), 686 So.2d 837; see also Canon 3(C), Code of Judicial Conduct. Accordingly, we granted the application for a supervisory writ of the relator, Patrick M. Arcement. We further grant relator’s request for relief: The Honorable Manuel Fernandez is and remains recused from hearing, dealing with, or trying any part of the captioned matter. Our stay order of 19 December 2002 is vacated. SUPERVISORY WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF GRANTED; STAY VACATED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.