Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Caperton v. Massey Coal Company that campaign contributions to judges by litigants could reach such a sizable level that recusal of the judge in cases involving the contributor may be required to satisfy procedural due process requirements.
While the ruling is not any sort of blanket prohibition on judicial campaign contributions, it does provide food for thought about how civil litigation will be conducted in any jurisdiction, including Pennsylvania, in which members of the judiciary are elected.
Election Finance, Due Process
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
