Contreras v. Bourke, No. CV 24-0217-PR (August 21, 2025) (J. Cruz) https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2025/CV240217PR.pdf

ONCE JUDGE RECUSES JUDGE MAY NOT MAKE DECISION ON CASE EVEN IF REASON FOR INITIAL RECUSAL IS ABSENT, WITHOUT GIVING PARTIES NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD/PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH LITIGANT ONLY REQUIRES RECUSAL IF “OBJECTIVE, DISINTERESTED, FULLY INFORMED OBSERVER REASONABLY QUESTIONS IMPARTIALITY”

Roger Contreras and Nancy Bourke sought to dissolve their marriage in 2009 in Cochise County. Lengthy litigation followed. In February 2020, all the superior court judges in Cochise County, including judge Timothy Dickerson (without explanation), recused themselves on the litigation and the case was assigned to a superior court judge in Pima County.

In January 2021 Dickerson was appointed Cochise County Presiding judge. In November 2022 Dickerson appointed Contreras justice of the peace pro tempore.  He reappointed Contreras twice, in May 2023 and August 2023. In December 2022 Contreras filed a motion to have Bourke designated a vexatious litigant, which among other things would preclude her from filing anything in court without preapproval from the court. Vexatious litigant motions are decided by the presiding judge and Dickerson granted the motion without addressing his prior recusal.  Bourke did not move to disqualify Dickerson.  Bourke appealed and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed finding Bourke had waived any objection to Judge Dickerson deciding the motion. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions regarding the superior court ruling and vacated the court of appeals decision.

“We hold that when a judge who previously recused from a case later determines that recusal is no longer warranted, he or she must advise the parties of his or her reasons for re-entering the case and give them an opportunity to be heard.”

The supreme court found  Bourke waived her  claim that recusal was mandated here because of the judge's professional relationship with Contreras having failed to move to disqualify Dickerson or raise the question of the professional relationship until appeal. Nonetheless, the court found the issue important enough to state that Dickerson was not required to recuse himself based solely upon the fact of the relationship unless “an objective, disinterested, fully informed observer would reasonably question the judge's impartiality.”