16 Cited authorities

Liteky v. United States
510 U.S. 540 (1994) Cited 7,706 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a judge's impatience and annoyance did not justify disqualification
Russello v. United States
464 U.S. 16 (1983) Cited 2,101 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that where "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act," courts presume that "Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion"
U.S. v. Holland
519 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,082 times
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."
U.S. v. Microsoft Corp.
253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) Cited 515 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts are not required to conduct evidentiary hearings prior to issuing relief in civil cases when "there are no disputed factual issues regarding the matter of relief
Preston v. U.S.
923 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 1991) Cited 277 times
Finding § 455(b) matter in controversy requirement satisfied when judge's former law partners represented a company that was not a party to the court case but might be liable in an indemnification proceeding if the plaintiffs prevailed in the underlying case
United States v. Heldt
668 F.2d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1981) Cited 229 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the search itself must be conducted in a reasonable manner, appropriately limited to the scope and intensity called for by the warrant," requiring an officer to execute a search "strictly within the bounds set by the warrant"
In the Matter of Hatcher
150 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 1998) Cited 79 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no recusal necessary under § 455(b) since the judge “learned nothing ... that any member of the public could not also have learned”
SCA Services, Inc. v. Morgan
557 F.2d 110 (7th Cir. 1977) Cited 125 times
Holding that there are no limits on motions for recusal brought pursuant to § 455
Baker Hostetler v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce
471 F.3d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 2006) Cited 21 times
Concluding that because "[i]n § 455(b) . . . Congress clearly and specifically addressed the effect of prior government service on a judge's recusal obligations," recusal under § 455 due to prior government service may be required only under "rare and extraordinary circumstances."
Little Rock School Dist. v. Armstrong
359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004) Cited 17 times
Affirming judge's decision not to recuse where prior representation “did not go to the merits of the case”
Section 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
28 U.S.C. § 455 Cited 11,108 times 29 Legal Analyses
Setting forth standards of recusal
Section 207 - Restrictions on former officers, employees, and elected officials of the executive and legislative branches
18 U.S.C. § 207 Cited 180 times 21 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting a former federal employee from appearing before his former agency, regarding matters that were pending under his authority, within a year of leaving federal service

Philip Morris USA Inc. et al v. United States Food and Drug Administration et al

16 Cited authorities

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

Holding that where "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act," courts presume that "Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion"

Holding that district courts are not required to conduct evidentiary hearings prior to issuing relief in civil cases when "there are no disputed factual issues regarding the matter of relief

Finding § 455(b) matter in controversy requirement satisfied when judge's former law partners represented a company that was not a party to the court case but might be liable in an indemnification proceeding if the plaintiffs prevailed in the underlying case

Holding that "the search itself must be conducted in a reasonable manner, appropriately limited to the scope and intensity called for by the warrant," requiring an officer to execute a search "strictly within the bounds set by the warrant"

Finding no recusal necessary under § 455(b) since the judge “learned nothing ... that any member of the public could not also have learned”

Holding that there are no limits on motions for recusal brought pursuant to § 455

Concluding that because "[i]n § 455(b) . . . Congress clearly and specifically addressed the effect of prior government service on a judge's recusal obligations," recusal under § 455 due to prior government service may be required only under "rare and extraordinary circumstances."

Affirming judge's decision not to recuse where prior representation “did not go to the merits of the case”

Setting forth standards of recusal

Prohibiting a former federal employee from appearing before his former agency, regarding matters that were pending under his authority, within a year of leaving federal service