green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
30.8 score
“where a party to a transaction conceals some material fact within his own knowledge, which it is his duty to disclose, he is guilty of actual fraud.”
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
ePlus Technology Inc v. Aboud
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
bias or prejudice on the part of a judge also can be sufficiently pervasive as to implicate due process concerns.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Oakwood Products Inc v. SWK Technologies Inc
where a party to a transaction conceals some material fact within his own knowledge, which it is his duty to disclose, he is guilty of actual fraud.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Just Wood Industries v. Centex Construction
it is not necessary to resort to the evidence concerning the parties' understanding of this interpretation because we find the contract unambiguous.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DANA STEVENSON v. AARON PAYNE, et al.
The standard for determining disqualification is “whether another, not knowing whether or not the judge is actually impartial, might reasonably question his impartiality on the basis of all the circumstances.” United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 286 (4th Cir. 1998); Aiken County v. BSP Division of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 679 (4th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jonathan Luis Jackson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 820 (1986), the right “protects not only against express judicial improprieties but also against conduct that threatens the ‘appearance of justice,’” Aiken Cnty. v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 678 (4th Cir. 1989) (quoting Aetna Life Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sarah Edge Woodward v. Geoffrey Hamilton Woodward
Aiken Cnty. v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 677 (4th Cir. 1989); Clady v. County of Los Angeles, 770 F.2d 1421, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985); Madden Phillips Constr., Inc. v. GGAT Dev.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sheryl Haynes v. Terry Haynes
Those conditions are: (1) “the findings and conclusions must accurately reflect the decision of the trial court,” and (2) “the record must not create doubt that the decision represents the trial court’s own deliberations and decision.” Id. at 316 (citing Aiken Cty. v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 677 (4th Cir. 1989); Clady v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 770 F.2d 1421, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985); Madden Phillips Constr., Inc. v. GGAT Dev.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cathryn Rose Rainey v. Chad Christopher Rainey
See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 572 (1985) (“We are . . . aware of the potential for overreaching and exaggeration on the part of [prevailing] attorneys preparing findings of fact” but “even when the trial judge adopts proposed findings verbatim, the findings are those of the court and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous.”); Aiken Cnty. v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 677 (4th Cir. 1989) (finding that the trial court’s extensive use of the prevailing parties’ findings of fact, while less than ideal, was acceptable; noting the record illustr…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Burr v. Denise Jackson
E.g., Aiken Cnty. v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 677 (4th Cir. 1989) (labeling the “near-verbatim adoption” of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law “less than ideal”); Anderson, 470 U.S. at 572 (noting that the Court had “criticized” the “verbatim adoption of findings of fact prepared by prevailing parties”); Jefferson, 560 U.S. at 293–94 (same). 8 Those concerns are particularly 8 See also, e.g., In re Equifax Inc. Customer Data Sec.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Newhouse v. Ethicon Inc
The standard for determining disqualification is “whether another, not knowing whether or not the judge is actually impartial, might reasonably question his impartiality on the basis of all the circumstances.” United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 286 (4th Cir. 1998); Aiken County v. BSP Division of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 679 (4th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cline v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association
Aiken Cty. v. BSP Div. of Encirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 667 (4th Cir. 1989) (explaining the standard for adoption of party’s proposed orders and finding the one at issue acceptable).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. Nohe
The standard for determining disqualification is “whether another, not knowing whether or not the judge is actually impartial, might reasonably question his impartiality on the basis of all the circumstances.” United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 286 (4th Cir. 1998); Aiken Cty. v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 679 (4th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Colton B.
See id. at 316–17 (citing DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 626 (7th Cir. 1990) (involving the dismissal of a complaint); Aiken Cty. v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 677 (4th Cir. 1989) (involving a bench trial); Clady v. Los Angeles Cty., 770 F.2d 1421, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985) (same); State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 321 (Tenn. 2014) (involving a sentencing hearing); Madden Phillips Const., Inc. v. GGAT Dev.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Walters v. Parrott
Ed. 2d 12 (1964)) and Aiken County v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 677 (4th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Kensington International Ltd.
In conclusion, for the permissib ly engage in ex parte reasons stated above, none of Petitioners’ communication in a complex class action” arguments that a conflict existed is and noting recusal movant’s concession persuasive. that premising his motion on Judge Wolin’s ex parte contacts was baseless) C. (internal quotations omitted); Aiken The majority also comments that County v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 45 866 F.2d 661, 679 (4th Cir. 1989) (recusal the qualitative circumstances of the inquiry based on ex parte contacts must contacts and their consequences in making take all circ…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Whitehead v. Viacom
Corp., 53 F.3d 36 , 41 (4th Cir.1995); Aiken County v. BSP Division of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 679 (4th Cir.1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gary L. Detemple
Corp., 53 F.3d 36 , 41 (4th Cir.1995); Aiken County v. BSP Division of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 679 (4th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Welsh v. Holt
Allegations of bias or prejudice, however, involve difficult subjective determinations and `only in the most extreme of cases would disquali- fication on this basis be constitutionally required.'" Id. at 678 (quot- ing Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 821 (1986)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Irvin Temple & Associates, a South Carolina General Partnership v. K Mart Corporation
As we have said, "[a]1legations of bias or prejudice ... involve difficult subjective determinations and 'only in the most extreme of cases would disqualification on this basis be constitutionally required.' " Aiken County v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 678 (4th Cir. 1989) (quoting Aetna Life Ins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David A. Taggart James H. Taggart, United States of America v. David A. Taggart James H. Taggert
Aiken County v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 678 (4th Cir. 1989) (quoting Aetna Life Ins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Welsh v. Commonwealth
While bias may be so pervasive as to offend due process, “only in the most extreme of cases would disqualification on this basis be constitutionally required.” Aiken County v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 678 (4th Cir. 1989) (quoting Aetna Life Ins.
cited
Cited "see"
Virginia Callahan v. Pacific Cycle, Inc.
See Aiken Cty. v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 671 (4th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Murphy v. United States
See Aiken County, 866 F.2d at 678 (“We do not think, however, that the two memoranda received by the judge and the ancillary ex parte contacts in this case approach the magnitude of constitutional error.”). ePlus Tech., Inc. v. Aboud, 313 F.3d 166, 178-79 (4th Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eplus Technology, Incorporated v. Patricia Aboud, A/K/A Carole Girard, and Daniel Jacques Akerib Jean-Marie Chartuny George Bernachawy John Doe
(2×)
See Aiken County, 866 F.2d at 678 *179 (“We do not think, however, that the two memoranda received by the judge and .the ancillary ex parte contacts in this case approach the magnitude of constitutional error”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Phillip Alig v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC
See, e.g., Aiken Cnty. v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661 , 676–77 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding that a district court’s near-verbatim adoption of an ex parte proposed order was not improper where the opposing party had the opportunity to air its views fully and the court appeared to have exercised independent judgment).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Phillip Alig v. Quicken Loans Inc.
See, e.g., Aiken Cnty. v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661 , 676–77 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding that a district court’s near-verbatim adoption of an ex parte proposed order was not improper where the opposing party had the opportunity to air its views fully and the court appeared to have exercised independent judgment).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Farkas
Nevertheless, this Court will reach the merits of this motion, rather than referring it to another judge. “[U]nder § 455(a), ‘[discretion is confided in the district judge in the first instance to determine whether to disqualify himself because the judge presiding over a case is in the best position to appreciate the implications of those matters alleged in a recusal motion,’ particularly when ‘the district court judge has presided over (i) an extraordinarily complex litigation (ii) involving a multitude of parties" (iii) for an extended period of time.’ ” United States v. Ciavare…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cherry
Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 821 (1986); see also Aiken County v. BSP Div. of Enviro- tech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 678 (4th Cir. 1989) ("The due process clause protects not only against express judicial improprieties but also against conduct that threatens the ‘appearance of justice.’" (quoting Aetna Life Ins.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Billie J. Cherry
Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 821 , 106 S.Ct. 1580 , 89 L.Ed.2d 823 (1986); see also Aiken County v. BSP Div. of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661 , 678 (4th Cir.1989) (“The due process clause protects not only against express judicial improprieties but also against conduct that threatens the ‘appearance of justice.’ ” (quoting Aetna Life Ins.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
E. David Gable v. Dean Witter Reynolds
See, e.g., Aiken County v. BSP Division of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661 (4th Cir. 1989) (reversing district court's sua sponte 15(b) post- trial amendment of the pleadings).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, Respondent, National Treasury Employees Union, Intervenor
v.
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, Respondent, National Treasury Employees Union, Intervenor
87-3182.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jan 6, 1989.
Published
Citer courts: Fourth Circuit (1) · D. South Carolina (1)
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC
The petitioner’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc was submitted to the Court. A majority of judges having voted in a requested poll of the Court to grant rehearing in banc,
IT IS ORDERED that rehearing in banc is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall be calendared for argument at the April Term of Court. Within ten days of the date of this order 4 additional copies of appellant’s briefs, 3 additional copies of appellee’s brief, and 4 additional copies of intervenor’s brief shall be filed. Petitioner will file 9 additional copies of the joint appendix.