The Commission on Judicial Ethics has ruled Justice Mark Gibbons can preside over an appeal and proceedings in cases previously heard by his brother Michael.
“A Supreme Court Justice is not disqualified from presiding over an appeal of a district court decision simply because a statutorily close relative presided over an interim review by the Court of Appeals which has since been vacated,” the opinion states. “However, disclosure of the relationship on the record is prudent and appropriate.”
Michael Gibbons is a member of the state’s intermediate Court of Appeals, the three member appellate court between the Supreme Court and Nevada’s District Courts.
The opinion states there’s no issue because the Supreme Court “conducts such review de novo and effectively limits its review to a review of the District Court decision.”
The opinion, in fact, states a justice, “is not at liberty nor does he have the right to take himself out of a case and burden another judge with his responsibility without good and legal cause.”
The advisory opinion was requested by “a justice,” presumably Mark Gibbons.