Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

James E. Duffy, Jr.

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 02:36, 15 August 2024 by Kirsten Corrao (contribs) (Add PersonCategories widget; remove some hard-coded categories)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
James E. Duffy Jr.

Silhouette Placeholder Image.png


Prior offices
Hawaii Supreme Court

Education

Bachelor's

College of St. Thomas

Law

Marquette University Law School


James E. Duffy, Jr. was an associate justice of the five member Hawaii Supreme Court. He was first appointed to the court on June 27, 2003 by Governor Linda Lingle. He retired in July 2012 and was replaced by Richard W. Pollack.[1][2][3]

Education

Justice Duffy earned his undergraduate degree from the College of St. Thomas and his J.D. from Marquette University Law School.[1]

Professional career

Justice Duffy was a founding member of the firm of Fujiyama, Duffy & Fujiyama, where he worked until joining the Supreme Court. He has also worked as a mediator, arbitrator, and special master.[1]

Awards and associations

Awards

  • Lifetime Achievement Award, Hawai`i State Bar Association
  • Lifetime Achievement Award, Consumer Lawyers of Hawai`i
  • John S. Edmunds Award

Associations

  • Past President, Hawai`i State Bar Association
  • Former Member, Marquette Law Review, Board of Editors
  • Member, American College of Trial Lawyers
  • Member, American Board of Trial Advocates
  • Member, American Inn of Court

Political outlook

See also: Political outlook of State Supreme Court Justices

In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices. They created a scoring system in which a score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology, while scores below 0 were more liberal.

Duffy received a campaign finance score of -0.36, indicating a liberal ideological leaning. This was more liberal than the average score of -0.29 that justices received in Hawaii.

The study was based on data from campaign contributions by the judges themselves, the partisan leaning of those who contributed to the judges' campaigns, or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic summary of various relevant factors.[4]

See also

External links

Footnotes