{
  "id": 790253,
  "name": "IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 181, GEORGE R. GREENE, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Inquiry Concerning A Judge, No. 181, Greene",
  "decision_date": "1995-05-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 112A95",
  "first_page": "251",
  "last_page": "252",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "340 N.C. 251"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 2823,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.75,
    "sha256": "cc396be208b1bdfd42f330c2c0a209e73bb42dccdb427bcff056a7de8c24c2ad",
    "simhash": "1:4c8494ae850be02a",
    "word_count": 445
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:34:40.112900+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 181, GEORGE R. GREENE, Respondent"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORDER OF CENSURE.\nThe matter came before the Judicial Standards Commission arising out of allegations of misconduct against the respondent. The subject matter of the allegations was based on certain comments made during the trial of two separate cases by respondent while serving as the presiding judge.\nRespondent stipulated to the correctness of the factual bases of the allegations and further stipulated that the described conduct would be prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. The Judicial Standards Commission, after making findings of facts and conclusions of law, recommended that respondent be censured. In his stipulation, respondent agreed to the Commission\u2019s recommendation.\nAfter reviewing the record and the recommendation of the Commission, this Court concludes that the respondent\u2019s conduct constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute within the meaning of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-376 (1989). The Court approves the recommendation of the Commission that the respondent be censured. Therefore, pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-376, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-377 (Supp. 1994) and Rule 3 of the Rules for Supreme Court Review of Recommendations of the Judicial Standards Commission, it is ordered that Judge George R. Greene be, and he is hereby, censured for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.\nDone by order of the Court in Conference, this the 4th day of May 1995.\ns/Orr, J.\nFor the Court",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for the Judicial Standards Commission or for the respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 181, GEORGE R. GREENE, Respondent\nNo. 112A95\n(Filed 5 May 1995)\nJudges, Justices, and Magistrates \u00a7 36 (NCI4th)\u2014 censure of superior court judge \u2014 conduct prejudicial to administration of justice\nA superior court judge is censured by the Supreme Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute based upon comments made during the trial of two separate cases while he served as the presiding judge.\nAm Jur 2d, Judges \u00a7 21.\nThis matter is before the Court upon a recommendation by the Judicial Standards Commission (\u201cthe Commission\u201d) entered 3 March 1995, and filed with this Court on 14 March 1995, that Judge George R. Greene, then a judge of the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Tenth Judicial District of the State of North Carolina, be censured for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of Canons 1, 2A, and 3A(3) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct. Calendared for argument in the Supreme Court 10 April 1995; determined without oral argument pursuant to N.C. R. App. P 30(d).\nNo counsel for the Judicial Standards Commission or for the respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0251-01",
  "first_page_order": 283,
  "last_page_order": 284
}