R. J. "Bob" Jones Excavating Contractor, Inc. v. Firemen's Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
R.J. "BOB" JONES EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR, INC.
v. FIREMEN'S INSURANCE COMPANY of Newark, New
Jersey

95-1318                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered June 10, 1996


1.   Judges -- motion requesting disqualification -- requirements.
     -- Rule 6-4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of
     Appeals of the State of Arkansas requires that a motion to
     disqualify be filed a reasonable time prior to the submission
     of the case to the appellate court.

2.   Judges -- motion requesting disqualification -- Ark. Sup. Ct.
     R. 6-4 not controlling -- party should not delay filing until
     he receives unfavorable ruling. -- Where appellant's motion
     was for disqualification from the rehearing only, Ark. Sup.
     Ct. R. 6-4 was not controlling; despite the limited scope of
     the present motion, a party should not delay filing a motion
     to disqualify until he receives a ruling that is unfavorable
     to his position.

3.   Judges -- no conflict of interest warranting disqualification
     -- motion denied. -- Where the briefs in the case did not
     reflect a conflict of interest; where the justice whose
     disqualification was sought found nothing in the briefs that
     would cause him to believe that the law firm where his wife
     was employed had any interest in the case; where the justice
     reached an independent decision on the merits of this case
     based upon the facts and law contained in the briefs presented
     by the parties to the appeal; and where the justice never had
     any interest in the disposition of the appeal other than
     concluding it in the highest degree of professional competence
     possible, appellant's motion requesting disqualification was
     denied. 


     Appellant's Motion Requesting Disqualification; denied.
     Stanley D. Rauls, for appellant.
     No response.

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.Associate Justice Donald L.
Corbin, 6-10-96   *ADVREP*SC3*







R.J. "BOB" JONES EXCAVATING
CONTRACTOR, INC.,
               APPELLANT,

V.

FIREMEN'S INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY,
               APPELLEE,

95-1318





APPELLANT'S MOTION REQUESTING
DISQUALIFICATION





MOTION DENIED.




     Mr. Stanley D. Rauls, attorney for the appellant, R.J. "Bob"
Jones Excavating Contractors, Inc., filed a motion requesting the
disqualification of Associate Justice Donald L. Corbin from
appellant's petition for rehearing.  The motion for
disqualification was filed subsequent to this court issuing an
unanimous decision that was adverse to his client's interest.
     Rule 6-4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals of the State of Arkansas requires that a motion to
disqualify "shall be filed a reasonable time prior to the
submission of the case to the Court."  It is questionable whether
the present motion to disqualify was timely filed since it
accompanied the petition for rehearing, the latter of which, by
definition, is filed after a case has been submitted and decided. 
However, Rule 6-4 is not controlling given that the present motion
is for disqualification from the rehearing only.  Despite the
limited scope of the present motion, a party should not delay
filing a motion to disqualify until he receives a ruling that is
unfavorable to his position.
     The briefs in the instant case did not reflect a conflict of
interest, nor was there anything in the briefs that would cause
this justice to believe that the law firm where his wife is
employed had any interest in the case under submission.  I reached
my independent decision on the merits of this case based upon the
facts and law contained in the briefs presented by the parties to
this appeal.  I have never had any interest in the disposition of
this appeal other than concluding it in the highest degree of
professional competence possible. 
     Motion denied.
     DUDLEY, J., not participating.

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.