Joseph Watt
From Judgepedia
| Oklahoma Supreme Court |
|---|
|
| Sitting justices |
| James Winchester James Edmondson Rudolph Hargrave Marian Opala Yvonne Kauger Joseph Watt Steven Taylor Tom Colbert John Reif |
| Former justices |
| Oklahoma on Judgepedia |
Contents |
Joseph M. Watt is a justice on the Oklahoma Supreme Court. He earned his J.D. from the University of Texas at Austin. He was appointed to the court by Democratic Governor David Walters. In 2008, Watt was subject to a retention election, winning 64% of the vote for retention (36% voted not to retain him). He will therefore serve another six years on the bench, with his new term expiring in 2014.
Watt was born March 8, 1947 in Austin, Texas. He is married to Cathy Watt. [1] Together, they have four children.[2]
Legal background
Joseph M. Watt graduated from Austin High School in Austin, Texas in 1965. In 1969, Watt earned a bachelor's degree majoring in history and government from Texas Tech University. He earned his J.D. from the University of Texas at Austin in 1972.
Legal career
In 1973, Watt moved to Oklahoma to work in private practice. He was appointed as Altus City Attorney in 1980 and served in that capacity until his appointment as a Special District Judge for Jackson County in 1985. The following year he was elected as an Associate Judge. He has also served as General Counsel in the Office of Oklahoma Governor David Walters. From 2003 to 2007, he served two terms as Chief Justice. In 2005, he was reelected to an unprecedented second term as Chief Justice, despite a federal age discrimination lawsuit filed by the Court's then-Vice Chief Justice Marian P. Opala, then 83 years old, who claimed Supreme Court rules were changed to prevent him from becoming Chief Justice.
Awards and associations
Watt was a past Secretary and President of the Altus Rotary Club and a Paul Harris Fellow. He was named Outstanding Law Student in the Nation by Delta Theta Phi upon his graduation from The University of Texas School of Law.[3]
Suit filed against Watt
At 83 years old, Marian P. Opala, a justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, believes that he deserves to be chief justice, and he is miffed that his colleagues have elected someone else to the post.[4] He has sued all eight colleagues in federal court for age discrimination. In his suit, filed last week in Federal District Court in Oklahoma City, Justice Opala said that he "enjoys good health and sound mental acuity" and that he was unfairly denied the prestige of being chief justice, including the "ceremonial duties" and slightly higher salary. The chief justice makes $110,000 a year, and the others $107,000.
"As a matter of history," he said, "state judges would not resort to federal court to settle their differences. In the last 20 years, though, a body of law has developed called employment law. It provides norms for hiring, firing, promotion and demotion." The Oklahoma Constitution allows members of the court to choose their own chief justice. In recent years under the court's internal rules, the position has rotated, two years at a time, among those justices who have served at least six years. Justice Opala, who joined the court in 1978, served once, from 1991 to 1992. It was his turn to serve again starting this month.
In November, the other justices changed the rules, and Chief Justice Joseph M. Watt was elected to a second two-year term.[5] That was, Justice Opala said, "an unprecedented extension in the annals of Oklahoma judicial history." The extension, he said, was a product of "an almost true-to-fiction plot" between Chief Justice Watt and some of the "young Turks" on the court. The youngest justice on the court, according to its Web site, is 52. Chief Justice Watt issued a brief statement acknowledging that he had been served with the suit. He said he would not comment "until the appropriate time." Yesterday, the other seven defendants declined to comment or did not respond to messages seeking comment. A spokesman for Attorney General W. A. Drew Edmondson, brother of Judge James E. Edmondson, whose office is representing the defendants, said it was too early to describe their defense.
Access to justice
Oklahoma has taken the initiative to increase efforts to help those in the lower income with the creation of the Oklahoma Access to Justice Commission. Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Deborah Hankinson, who led the effort to establish the Texas commission, offered assistance and words of advice at the recent luncheon celebrating the Oklahoma commission’s first meeting. “The promise of equal justice goes unfilled for the poor,” Hankinson said. “The challenge of equal justice is the greatest challenge because it requires each of us to do something. Without this commitment, the rule of law will suffer.”[6] Further, “The present need for legal services demonstrates a failure of the legal system. Our profession must lead the way — this idea is the foundation of the Access to Justice movement that is sweeping the nation. Access to Justice is the vessel for confronting problems. We can assess needs, identify fixes, search for money for programs and educate, educate, educate!”
The commission’s budget, when finalized, will require approval from the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph Watt said, “I am excited about the potential of this commission to meet the needs of low-income Oklahomans. Oklahoma lawyers possess tremendous talents and generous spirits. Hopefully, the creation of this commission will allow both of these traits to manifest themselves through greater access to our justice system for everyone.” Judge Gary Lumpkin of the Court of Criminal Appeals is Chairman of the Oklahoma Access to Justice Commission
On The Issues
Contracts
Justice Watt concurred in the majority opinion of Justice James Winchester, which invalidated a clause in a contract between defendant, a cellular phone provider, and defendant, a customer who entered into a contract with defendat.
Justice Watt concurred in the majority opinion concluding that the state's newly enacted prohibition on cock-fighting did not, amongst other things, constitute and regulatory taking of private property without compensation, or an unlawful interference with the contractual rights of those involved in cockfighting
On Education
2007
Justice Watt concurred in the majority opinion of Justice Rudolph Hargrave. That opinion affirmed the trial judge's finding that the school district did not adequately demonstrate that a teacher who slapped and otherwise physically attacked a special-needs child deserved to have his employment terminated.
Justice Watt concurred in the majority opinion of Justice Rudolph Hargrave. That opinion affirmed the trial judge's finding that the school district did not adequately demonstrate that a teacher deserved to have his employment terminated for instructional ineffectiveness and unsatisfactory teaching.
Election law
Justice Watt authored the Court's opinion invalidating citizens' efforts to place a Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR) on the Oklahoma ballot due to the use of out-of-state petition circulators by the initiative's supporters.
Justice Watt concurred in the majority opinion of Justice Yvonne Kauger, which invalidated a property-rights based voter initiative that would have protected private property from economic-development and regulatory takings.
2002
Justice Watt concurred in the majority opinion upholding the legal and numerical sufficiency of an initiative petition that sought to ban cock-fighting in the state of Oklahoma.
Employment issues
Justice Watt concurred in the opinion of Justice James E. Lavender finding that an employer had the right to terminate the employment of an employee who insisted on pursuing a claim against a third party under Oklahoma's Open Records Act, as there was no "public policy exception" to such a firing.
Negligence
Dissented without opinion from the majority opinion, authored by Justice Steven W. Taylor, finding Dish Network was not responsible for the injuries of a customer who fell off the roof of her home while trying to repair her Dish Network satellite dish, even though Dish Network refused to make the repairs, and encouraged the customer to climb up onto the roof and make the repairs herself.
Property rights
Justice Watt concurred in the majority opinion of Justice Yvonne Kauger, which invalidated a property-rights based voter initiative what would have protected private property from economic-development and regulatory takings.
Justice Watt concurred in the majority opinion concluding that the state's newly enacted prohibition on cock-fighting did not, amongst other things, constitute and regulatory taking of private property without compensation, or an unlawful interference with the contractual rights of those involved in cockfighting.
External links
References
Portions of this biography were taken from Wikipedia on December 12, 2007.
