Liteky v. United States

Holding that a judge's impatience and annoyance did not justify disqualification

Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.

Holding that relief from judgment is not automatic even if the presiding judge violates § 455 by failing to recuse himself

Romer v. Evans

Holding unlawful a state law that precluded local ordinances from protecting homosexuals from discrimination because it "seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects"

Hollingsworth v. Perry

Recognizing that a district court's local rules have "the force of law"

Johnson v. Johnson

Holding that Farmer has made it "abundantly clear" that prison officials cannot leave an inmate to fight off his attackers or submit as a victim of sexual assault

In re Murchison

Holding that it violated due process for one adjudicator to act as grand jury and judge for same defendants

U.S. v. Holland

Holding that the two-part test is whether "a reasonable third-party observer who "understand all the relevant facts" and has examined the record and law—not a "hypersensitive or unduly suspicious person"—would conclude that there is an appearance of bias, and whether the court concludes that it cannot impartially "administer justice without respect to persons."

Green v. Branson

Holding that recusal motion filed under §§ 144 and 455 was untimely where it was brought five weeks after magistrate judge's recommendation

Scarbrough v. Morgan County Bd. of Educ

Holding that "intended speech" which the plaintiff was later "unable" to make "touched on a matter of public concern"

Lofton v. Secretary of Dept. of Children

Holding thatLawrence did not create a fundamental right to private sexual intimacy

Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order

Granting relief from the operation of a judgment

Section 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

Setting forth standards of recusal

Rule 62.1 - Indicative Ruling on a Motion for Relief That is Barred by a Pending Appeal

Directing that, "[i]f a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may" do one of these things: " defer considering the motion; deny the motion; or state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue"

Rule 12.1 - Remand After an Indicative Ruling by the District Court on a Motion for Relief That Is Barred by a Pending Appeal