Contreras v. Bourke

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Ms. Burke argued that Judge Dickerson’s prior self-recusal in the dissolution action, without stated reasons, created an appearance of bias under Rule 211A when he later ruled on the vexatious litigant motion involving Mr. Contreras.
2. The court questioned whether Ms. Burke waived her objection to the judge’s participation by failing to formally raise the issue or request clarification at the trial court level.
3. Counsel for Mr. Contreras contended that appointing him as a Judge Pro Tem was a ministerial act requiring a finding of good moral character, which does not inherently imply bias in the underlying family law case.
4. The justices discussed whether the standard of review should be fundamental error, structural error, or harmless error given that no formal objection to judicial bias was preserved in the record.
5. Ms. Burke maintained in rebuttal that the vexatious litigant determination involves substantive judgments about a party’s conduct, distinguishing it from administrative or ministerial acts.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT57M37S · Captions available