20 Cited authorities

Bolin v. Story
225 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2000) Cited 868 times
Holding that federal judges are entitled to "absolute immunity" from suit
United States v. Will
449 U.S. 200 (1980) Cited 354 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule of necessity is an exception to the recusal requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 455
U.S. v. Cooley
1 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 1993) Cited 590 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a judge's deliberate choice to express “strong views” on a pending case in a media forum “conveyed an uncommon interest ... in the subject matter” and “created the appearance that the judge had become an active participant in [the litigation]”
Tapia-Ortiz v. Winter
185 F.3d 8 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 271 times
Holding that a panel of three judges, all of whom were named in the suit at issue, could hear and resolve the appeal because it was "impossible . . . to convene a three-member panel consisting of circuit judges that are not a party to this suit"
Ignacio v. Judges of U.S. Court of Appeals
453 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 127 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court rightly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction an action that challenged a state superior court's determination in a domestic-relations case
Switzer v. Berry
198 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2000) Cited 70 times
Holding that the recusal statute should not be construed so broadly as to become effectively presumptive or to require recusal based on unsubstantiated suggestions of personal bias or prejudice
Pilla v. American Bar Ass'n
542 F.2d 56 (8th Cir. 1976) Cited 114 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming in this respect on the basis of the district court opinion
Andersen v. Roszkowski
681 F. Supp. 1284 (N.D. Ill. 1988) Cited 60 times
Holding the automatic disqualification of a judge is not required based on a litigant suing or threatening to sue
Russell v. U.S.
Case No. 08-cv-0247-MJR (S.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2008)
Case No. 08-cv-0247-MJR. November 5, 2008 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM MICHAEL REAGAN, District Judge On March 31, 2008, Kennedy M. Russell filed this action against the United States of America, the Internal Revenue Service and Gloria J. Thomas. Russell complains that Defendants' attempts to collect his unpaid tax liabilities were undertaken in violation of his constitutional rights. On April 1, 2008, summonses were issued as to all Defendants (Doc. 2). On April 28, 2008, Russell filed Proof of Service
Weston v. U.S.
259 F. App'x 66 (10th Cir. 2007)
Nos. 07-5026, 07-5042, 07-5048. December 6, 2007. Carl Weston, Catoosa, OK, pro se. Eddie L. Andrews, Catoosa, OK, pro se. Rodney Class, High Shoals, NC, pro se. Angela S. Andrews, Catoosa, OK, pro se. Richard Andrews, Catoosa, OK, pro se. Dwight L. Class, Angleton, TX, pro se. Maria Janet Moffit, Bremerton, WA, pro se. Sherwood T. Rodrigues, Petaluma, CA, pro se. William McDonald, pro se. John Doe, pro se. Vincent Ralph Caligiuri, Gold Hill, OR, pro se. Delant Cory Palmerton, Grants Pass, OR, pro
Section 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
28 U.S.C. § 455 Cited 10,943 times 29 Legal Analyses
Setting forth standards of recusal
Section 1442 - Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted
28 U.S.C. § 1442 Cited 5,097 times 87 Legal Analyses
Granting removal power to "[a]ny officer of the United States . . . or person acting under him"
Rule 38 - Right to a Jury Trial; Demand
Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 Cited 2,257 times 9 Legal Analyses
Explaining that a party waives its right to a jury trial by failing to properly request one
Section 517 - Interests of United States in pending suits
28 U.S.C. § 517 Cited 381 times 5 Legal Analyses
Noting that lawyers designated by the Attorney General shall "attend to the interests of the United States"
Section 1451 - Definitions
28 U.S.C. § 1451 Cited 52 times
Defining "State court" to include the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for purposes of removal jurisdiction
Section 0.70 - General functions
28 C.F.R. § 0.70 Cited 25 times 1 Legal Analyses
Codifying the Tax Division's authority

Buess et al v. United States et al

20 Cited authorities

Holding that federal judges are entitled to "absolute immunity" from suit

Holding that the rule of necessity is an exception to the recusal requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 455

Holding that a judge's deliberate choice to express “strong views” on a pending case in a media forum “conveyed an uncommon interest ... in the subject matter” and “created the appearance that the judge had become an active participant in [the litigation]”

Holding that a panel of three judges, all of whom were named in the suit at issue, could hear and resolve the appeal because it was "impossible . . . to convene a three-member panel consisting of circuit judges that are not a party to this suit"

Holding that the district court rightly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction an action that challenged a state superior court's determination in a domestic-relations case

Holding that the recusal statute should not be construed so broadly as to become effectively presumptive or to require recusal based on unsubstantiated suggestions of personal bias or prejudice

Affirming in this respect on the basis of the district court opinion

Holding the automatic disqualification of a judge is not required based on a litigant suing or threatening to sue

Setting forth standards of recusal

Granting removal power to "[a]ny officer of the United States . . . or person acting under him"

Explaining that a party waives its right to a jury trial by failing to properly request one

Noting that lawyers designated by the Attorney General shall "attend to the interests of the United States"

Defining "State court" to include the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for purposes of removal jurisdiction

Codifying the Tax Division's authority