Justice-Denied · Editorial cartoons
Cartoon 3 of 26
The Pocket-Sized Concern
Satire. Dialogue is imagined; the underlying rulings and records are linked below.
Read cartoon text
Panel 1: OTTER TAIL · 2013–2014
Three judicial robes hang above three personified signed RECUSAL notices. An OTTER TAIL COUNTY map bears APPEARANCE CONCERNS. A reader holds a book marked Reader while looking toward the notices.
Reader: Three judges stepped aside.
Panel 2: THE 2025 APPEAL
A personified OPINION unfolds a different map marked SMALL COMMUNITY beside a FAMILIARITY IS NORMAL card. A book identifies Stevenson A25-0186(2025),p.8.
Opinion: It is a small community.
Panel 3: REDUCING THE MAP
The opinion folds the map into smaller sections, with curved arrows showing its reduction to a tiny square. APPEARANCE CONCERNS remains visible while the reader holds three earlier RECUSAL notices.
Panel 4: TRAVEL SIZE
A tiny smiling map peers out of the opinion’s robe pocket. The reader looks toward it while holding the three separate recusal notices.
Map: Appearance concerns. Now in pocket size.
Artwork caption: Imagined dialogue. Signed 2013–2014 recusal notices; Stevenson, A25-0186 (2025), p. 8.
Behind the cartoon
In Western Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Ugstad Plumbing, a property-damage case involving Robert and Lois Russell, three Otter Tail County judges recused—stepped aside—in 2013–2014. Their notices cited knowing the Russells, discussing damage to their home, or a daughter’s partnership in a law firm involved.
In 2025, Craig and Marie Stevenson sought to disqualify Judge Kevin M. Miller because a clerk assisting him had previously worked for the father of a defense lawyer. The Court of Appeals affirmed denial, emphasizing the realities of a small community with three judges. The cartoon compares those expressed approaches to appearance concerns.
Underlying records
- Judge Waldemar Senyk recusal — January 31, 2013, 56-CV-13-228Single-page signed notice, item 3: acquainted with the Russells and discussed fire damage; ‘I would appear biased.’
- Judge Mark Hansen recusal — signed February 10, filed February 11, 2014, 56-CV-13-228Single-page signed notice, item 3: “My daughter is a partner in one of the firms involved in the litigation.”
- Judge Barbara Hanson recusal — February 14, 2014, 56-CV-13-228Single-page signed notice, item 3: knows the Russells; Mr. Russell regularly appears as an attorney; recusal “to avoid an appearance of impropriety.”
- Stevenson v. Stevenson, A25-0186 — July 28, 2025 (nonprecedential)p. 4: clerk-assignment statement and appearance standard; pp. 5–6: review/appearance analysis; p. 6: footnote 3 and plaintiffs’ January 2017 assertion; p. 8: substantive-influence finding and small, three-judge community; p. 9: affirmance.
