Liteky v. United States
510 U.S. 540 (1994) Cited 7,653 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that a judge's impatience and annoyance did not justify disqualification
Laird v. Tatum
408 U.S. 1 (1972) Cited 1,390 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that where a defendant's chilling claims stemmed from government surveillance techniques and not a proscriptive regulation, “[a]llegations of a subjective ‘chill’ [were] not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm”
U.S. v. Holland
519 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,075 timesHolding 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."
Buell v. Mitchell
274 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 2001) Cited 757 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "a petitioner cannot circumvent the exhaustion requirement by failing to comply with state procedural rules" (quoting Coleman v. Mitchell, 244 F.3d 533, 538 (6th Cir. 2001) )
Kosilek v. Spencer
774 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2014) Cited 293 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding no deliberate indifference where decision fell "within the realm of reason and made in good faith"
In re School Asbestos Litigation
977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. 1992) Cited 220 timesHolding that unique extrajudicial conduct with third parties constituted bias
In re U.S.
441 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2006) Cited 125 timesFinding the concerns underling the grand jury secrecy rules—“encouraging prospective witnesses to come forward and testify ‘fully and frankly’ to the grand jury, without improper influence in the form of threats or inducements; preventing targets of grand jury investigation from being alerted to the scrutiny and fleeing, or attempting to influence grand jurors or witnesses; and assuring that those who are investigated but not indicted are saved from ‘public ridicule’ ”—are “largely gone” once the indictment is public
In re Aguinda
241 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 144 timesHolding that a judge's participation in programs sponsored by bar associations or law schools does not require recusal
U.S. v. Payne
944 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1991) Cited 155 timesHolding that challenged testimony was not hearsay because it was properly admitted to show its effect on the listener, rather than the truth of the matter asserted
Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.
292 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2009) Cited 88 timesConcluding that trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying motion to recuse
Section 2255 - Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence
28 U.S.C. § 2255 Cited 129,350 times 129 Legal AnalysesAdopting one-year limitations period for §2255 motions
Section 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
28 U.S.C. § 455 Cited 11,026 times 29 Legal AnalysesSetting forth standards of recusal