Judge Griffen denies delay in school case hearing | Arkansas Blog

Monday, March 16, 2015

Judge Griffen denies delay in school case hearing

Posted By on Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:02 PM

Judge Wendell Griffen in a telephone conference last Friday denied a request for a delay in a scheduled preliminary injunction hearing Wednesday and Thursday by plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the state Board of Education's takeover of the Little Rock School District.

The state Education Department's lead attorney, Jeremy Lasiter, had asked for a delay because a family member will be undergoing surgery Wednesday. Plaintiffs lawyers were agreeable to the request. But the judge said the department's other lawyer, Lori Freno, was capable of representing the state. She had said that Lasiter had greater institutional knowledge. She's been with the department two years.  Griffen said she was an experienced lawyer and denied a postponement.

The judge also chastised the department for failing to copy Baker Kurrus on its request that the judge get off the case for comments he'd made critical of a  state takeover before the vote was taken. Kurrus was named by Education Commissioner Tony Wood as a volunteer to advise on improving the district's financial situation. He's a former Little Rock School Board member and had been named by the former School Board to work on a financial task force. The state is not representing Kurrus,

The Kurrus issue became moot today. Plaintiffs asked that he be dismissed as a defendant in the case and the judge granted the motion.

The judge denied the recusal motion last week before the state had filed a reply to plaintiffs' response to the recusal motion. He has issued a supplemental opinion reiterating his refusal to recuse. He wrote:

Due process requires that litigants receive equal treatment under the law, but there has never been a requirement in the law that judges be un-opinionated in order to be deemed, or to appear to be, fair-minded. Conversely, the law does not disqualify fair-minded judges who hold opinions that litigants may consider disagreeable from fulfilling our duty to hear and decide the cases we are assigned. Judges are obliged to follow the proof and the law in arriving at our decsions, not our preconceived opinions about issues or parties. Meanwhile, litigants are not entitled to remove impartial judges from hearing and deciding lawsuits by exercising what amount to peremptory challenges labeled as recusal motions.

From the ArkTimes store


Comments (3)

Showing 1-3 of 3

Add a comment

Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-3 of 3

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

Readers also liked…

Most Shared

  • In the margins

    A rediscovered violin concerto brings an oft-forgotten composer into the limelight.
  • Donald Trump is historically unpopular — and not necessarily where you think

    My colleagues John Ray and Jesse Bacon and I estimate, in the first analysis of its kind for the 2018 election season, that the president's waning popularity isn't limited to coastal cities and states. The erosion of his electoral coalition has spread to The Natural State, extending far beyond the college towns and urban centers that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. From El Dorado to Sherwood, Fayetteville to Hot Springs, the president's approval rating is waning.
  • Arkansans join House vote to gut Americans with Disabilities Act

    Despite fierce protests from disabled people, the U.S. House voted today, mostly on party lines, to make it harder to sue businesses for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Of course Arkansas congressmen were on the wrong side.

Most Viewed

  • Another Trump propagandist from Arkansas gets blasted

    If Sarah Huckabee Sanders is Donald Trump's Baghdad Barbie, spouting implausible statements in support of her boss in the style of Saddam's Baghdad Bob, then let's make El Dorado native Hogan Gidley Baghdad Ken.

Most Recent Comments


© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation