Carey v. Wolnitzek et al, No. 3:2006cv00036 - Document 145 (E.D. Ky. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: 1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 136 is GRANTED; 2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 137 is DENIED; 3) matter DISMISSED & STRICKEN from docket. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 9/29/2012. (Attachments: # 1 KY Supreme Court Cannon 5) (SKV) cc: COR

Download PDF
,.---------- ­ -- ~uprtmt Qlourf -of ~tnfutk\! IN RE: EMERGENCY ORDER AMENDING RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT (SCR) 2010-11 Pursuant to CR 87(2), the Court hereby orders that the following rule amendment to SCR 4.300, Canon 5(B)(1 )(c) shall become effective immediately. CANON 5: A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY B. Campaign Conduct. (1) A judge or candidate for election to judicial office: (c) shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office. Commentary The making of a pledge, promise or commitment is not dependent upon, or limited to, the use of any specific words or phrases; instead, the totality of the statement must be examined to determine if a reasonable person would believe that the candidate for judicial office has specifically undertaken to reach a particular result. Pledges, promises, or commitments must be contrasted with statements or announcements of personal views on legal, political, or other issues, which are not prohibited. When making such statements, a judge should acknowledge the overarching jUdicial obligation to apply and uphold the law, without regard to his or her personal views. A judicial candidate may make campaign promises related to judicial organization, administration, and court management, such as a promise to dispose of a backlog of cases, start court sessions on time, or avoid favoritism in appointments and hiring. A candidate may also pledge to take action outside the courtroom, such as working toward an improved jUry selection system, or advocating for more funds to improve the physical plant and amenities of the courthouse. Judicial candidates may receive questionnaires or requests for interviews from the media and from issue advocacy or other community organizations that seek to learn their views on disputed or controversial legal or political issues. Section 58(1 )(c) does not specifically address judicial responses to such inquiries. Depending upon the wording and format of such questionnaires, candidates' responses might be viewed as pledges, promises or commitments to perform the adjudicative duties of office other than in an impartial way. To avoid violating Section 58(1 )(c), therefore, candidates who respond to media and other inquiries should also give assurances that they will keep an open mind and will carry out their adjudicative duties faithfully and impartially if elected. Candidates who do not respond may state their reasons for not responding, such as the danger that answering might be perceived by a reasonable person as undermining a successful candidate's independence or impartiality, or that it might lead to frequent disqualifications. All sitting. All concur. ENTERED: December J5 ,2010

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.