Roe v. Ross

7 Citing cases

  1. City of Sanford v. Ashton

    131 Fla. 759 (Fla. 1938)   Cited 12 times

    And citing in support thereof the following: "1 Story's Equity Jur., No. 245; Erwin v. Parham, 12 How. U.S. 197, 206; White v. Duncan, 7 Ves. Jr., 34; Livingston v. Byrne, 11 Johns., 557, 565; Hardy v. Heard, 15 Ark. 189; Williamson v. Dale, 2 Johns. Ch. 272; Roe v. Ross, 2 Ind. 99; Newton's Heirs v. Bank, 22 Ark. 19." To the same effect is the holding in Lawyers' Cooperative Publishing Co. v. Bennett, 34 Fla. 302, 16 So. 185, and in McFarlin v. McFarlin, 50 Fla. 570, 39 So. 995; Ruff v. Guaranty Title Co., etc., 99 Fla. 197, 126 So. 383.

  2. Farris v. Farris

    485 S.W.3d 827 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Id.Viewing this cause from the perspective of a reasonable person familiar with the entire record but unfamiliar with the dedication, integrity, and personality of the trial judge, numerous comments from the trial court also indicate a lack of impartiality. SeeRoe v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 799, 804 (Mo.App.W.D.1985); Rutlader v. Rutlader, 411 S.W.2d 826, 831 (Mo.App.K.C.D.1967).A judge presiding at a trial should at all times maintain an impartial attitude and

  3. Davis v. Schmidt

    210 S.W.3d 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 41 times
    Noting evidence of financial condition eight months after dissolution should have been presented at hearing on movant's motion for appellate attorney's fees

    In his sixth and final point, Father argues that the trial judge erred in failing to recuse himself sua sponte during trial, arguing that despite his duty to maintain an impartial attitude and a status of neutrality at all times, his actions throughout the proceedings in this case demonstrated that a reasonable and disinterested bystander, unacquainted with the personality, integrity, and dedication of the judge, would have a reasonable factual basis to find an appearance of impropriety and thereby doubt the impartiality of the court. See, e.g., Roe v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 799, 804 (Mo.App. W.D.1985). While "[t]here is a presumption that a trial judge would not undertake to preside over a case where his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned," this "presumption is rebutted, requiring a judge to recuse himself or herself, with or without an application, where there is actual bias and prejudice, or an appearance of impropriety."

  4. Farris v. Farris

    75 S.W.3d 345 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 8 times

    Regardless whether the trial court believed Wife waived her interest in Husband's pension, under these circumstances, she did not. Next, Husband contends that the trial court's comments before presentation of the evidence showed a predisposition in favor of Wife. A trial judge should at all times maintain an impartial attitude and a status of neutrality. Roe v. Ross , 701 S.W.2d 799, 804 (Mo.App.W.D. 1985). A lack of impartiality is shown where a trial judge decides a controversy without hearing the evidence that ought to resolve it. Rutlader v. Rutlader , 411 S.W.2d 826, 831 (Mo.App. 1967).

  5. In Interest of M.H

    828 S.W.2d 951 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 6 times

    However, § 211.447 clearly implies that parents have a duty to provide their children with a continuing relationship through communication and visitation. Roe v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 799, 802 (Mo.App. 1985). Incarceration does not excuse a parent's obligation to provide the parent's child with a continuing relationship, and parental rights may properly be terminated while the parent is incarcerated.

  6. In Interest of M.L.K

    804 S.W.2d 398 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 44 times

    See In Interest of H.M., 770 S.W.2d at 444. However, § 211.447 clearly implies that parents have a duty to provide their children with a continuing relationship through communication and visitation. Roe v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 799, 802 (Mo.App. 1985). Incarceration does not excuse a parent's obligation to provide the parent's child with a continuing relationship, and parental rights may properly be terminated while the parent is incarcerated.

  7. In re Marriage of Piercy

    774 S.W.2d 539 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)

    He relies upon three cases, which do not aid his position. In Roe v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 799, 804 (Mo.App. 1985), "the trial judge here demonstrated his own lack of impartiality by indicating that he had already decided one of the ultimate issues of the case before the mother had an opportunity to present any of her evidence." In Bova v. Bova, 135 S.W.2d 384, 385 (Mo.App. 1940), after counsel asked a few initial questions, the circuit court took over the examination.