Robinson Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Phillips
2016 Ark. 388
Ark.2016Background
- Appellees moved to disqualify (recuse) Justice Rhonda K. Wood from an appeal alleging campaign contributions from Michael Morton and nursing homes he allegedly controls created an appearance of bias.
- Exhibits showed fifteen $2,000 checks from nursing homes and five additional $2,000 checks, which appellees aggregated to claim $40,000 in contributions (about 30% of campaign receipts based on their selected report).
- The campaign’s complete records showed $154,900 total contributions and that $20,000 of the funds from Morton-related sources were returned, leaving $20,000 retained by the campaign.
- Justice Wood reviewed Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2 and Rule 2.11 (and Comment [4] factors) and considered relevant Arkansas and U.S. precedent on recusal and campaign contributions.
- Applying the Comment [4] factors (size, involvement, timing, issues, other facts), she concluded: contributions retained ($20,000), lack of other campaign involvement by Morton, a cooling-off period (contributions made in 2013–2014; case likely not submitted until 2017), and no alleged communications of bias weigh against recusal.
- Justice Wood denied the individual motion to recuse, emphasizing the presumption that judges will decide impartially, her history of recusing when appropriate, and the danger of litigants manipulating court composition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Justice Wood must recuse for appearance of bias due to campaign contributions | Morton and Morton-controlled nursing homes gave $40,000 to Wood’s campaign, creating an appearance of impropriety requiring recusal under Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct | Contributions (net $20,000 retained) are insufficient alone; no other campaign involvement, substantial cooling-off period, and no communication of bias — judge should remain | Denied: under Rule 2.11 Comment [4], factors (size, involvement, timing, issues, other facts) do not require disqualification |
Key Cases Cited
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (extreme financial support of a judicial campaign can require recusal)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) (presumption of judicial honesty and integrity)
- Perroni v. State, 358 Ark. 17 (Ark. 2004) (duty of judges to decide cases absent valid disqualification)
- Searcy v. Davenport, 352 Ark. 307 (Ark. 2003) (presumption of impartiality for judges)
- Massongill v. Scott, 337 Ark. 281 (Ark. 1999) (campaign-related recusal challenge denied)
- Ivey v. Dist. Ct., 299 P.3d 354 (Nev. 2013) (no recusal where judge received significant campaign contributions as percentage of total)
- Dumas v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 789 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. 2010) (passage of time reduces the appearance that past contributions create present impropriety)