green
Positive treatment
Hot · 50 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 8×
52.8 score
“the decision whether a judge's impartiality can reasonably be questioned is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported," and "largely inaccurate and uninformed opinions cannot determine the recusal question.”
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
In Re US
R.107 at 1. [6] See, e.g., In re United States, 398 F.3d 615, 617 (7th Cir.2005); United States v. Boyd, 208 F.3d 638, 645 (7th Cir.2000); In re Hatcher, 150 F.3d 631, 637 (7th Cir.1998); United States v. Horton, 98 F.3d 313, 316-17 (7th Cir. 1996); Hook v. McDade, 89 F.3d 350 , 354 n. 2 (7th Cir. 1996); In re Mason, 916 F.2d 384, 385 (7th Cir.1990); Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 , 1201 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1204-05 (7th Cir.1985); SCA Servs., Inc. v. Morgan, 557 F.2d 110, 117-18 (7th Cir.1977); but see Boyd, 208 F.3d at 649-50 (Ripple, J., dissenting)…
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. J.P. Stadtmueller
Co., 839 F.2d at 1229 .7 Of course, needless recusals exact a significant toll; judges therefore should exercise care in determining whether recusal is 6 (...continued) F.3d 350, 354 n.2 (7th Cir. 1996); In re Mason, 916 F.2d 384, 385 (7th Cir. 1990); Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 , 1201 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 , 1204‐05 (7th Cir. 1985); SCA Servs., Inc. v. Morgan, 557 F.2d 110 , 117‐18 (7th Cir. 1977); but see Boyd, 208 F.3d at 649‐50 (Ripple, J., dissenting) (noting that this position is in tension with two decisions by the Supreme Court and ha…
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Marva L. Russell Mason v. Secretary of Department of Veterans Affairs Agency
that is why federal law provides for automatic substitution of the new officer when the originally named officer has been replaced.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sanai v. Kozinski
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
since i do not believe my impartiality can 26 reasonably be questioned, i do not think it would be proper for me to recuse. that alone is 27 conclusive
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
FIELDS v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
the decision whether a judge's impartiality can reasonably be questioned is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported," and "largely inaccurate and uninformed opinions cannot determine the recusal question.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Catherine R. Connors
the people must have conidence in the integrity of the justices, and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor, and in an atmosphere where the press will be eager to ind foot-faults.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
4E Brands Northamerica LLC and Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
his court has ruled, in factually limiting circumstances, that friendship between the judge and a person with an interest in the case is not sufficient grounds to reverse a judge's failure to recuse.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Caffa-Mobley v. Carter
that is why federal law provides for the automatic substitution of the new officer when the originally named officer has been replaced.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
City of Milwaukee v. J. P. Stadtmueller
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
e decide ... whether a reasonable, wellinformed observer could question the judge's impartiality.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Buie v. Berrien
ed-eral law provides for automatic substitution of the new officer when the originally named officer has been replaced.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Allen
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Ct. for D.C., 541 U.S. 913 (2004) (Scalia, J., in chambers). “[W]hile friendship is a ground for recusal of a Justice where the personal fortune or the personal freedom of the friend is at issue,” he observed, “it has traditionally not been a ground for recusal where official action is at issue, no matter how important the official action was to the ambitions or the reputation of the Government officer.” Id. at 916.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cyrus Sanai v. Alex Kozinski
(2×)
Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 916 (2004) (Scalia, J., respecting recusal) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Joshua M. Moore v. Marty Jackley, in his official capacity as Attorney General of South Dakota; Ernest Thompson, in his official capacity as Deputy Attorney General of South Dakota
Ct., 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004) (Memo. of Scalia, J.) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jana v. Walmart, Inc.
From the perspective of a reasonable observer who is informed of all the surrounding facts and circumstances, Cheney, 541 U.S. at 924, my impartiality could not reasonably be questioned.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trejo v. Abbott
Ct. for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004), which the Fifth Circuit has interpreted to mean that “[courts] ask how things appear to the well–informed, thoughtful and objective observer, rather than the hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious person,” while keeping in mind that “an observer of our judicial system is less likely to credit judges’ impartiality than the judiciary” would be.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Martinez
Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 914 (2004) (mem.) (Scalia, J.) (“The decision whether a judge’s impartiality can ‘reasonably be questioned’ is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported.”) (quoting Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000) (mem.) (Rehnquist, C.J.)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc.
Of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004) (Scalia, J.) (denying recusal motion and explaining that “a blast of largely inaccurate and uninformed opinion cannot determine the recusal question”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Washington v. Wang
“The decision whether a judge’s impartiality can ‘reasonably be questioned’ is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported.” Cheney, 541 U.S. at 914.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Schwarzer v. Shanklin
Ct. for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004) (emphases added); see also United States v. Morrison, 833 F.3d 491, 506 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1098 (2017).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Snarr v. United States
Ct. for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Garcia v. United States
Ct. for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Knight v. Phillips
Court for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004) (quotation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Finan v. Access Care General, LLC
Ct., 541 U.S. 913, 916 (2004) (Memo. of Scalia, J.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Knotts v. Marra
“The decision whether a judge's impartiality can ‘reasonably be questioned’ is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised[.]” Cheney v. United States District Court for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 914 (2004) (Scalia, J.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Townsend v. Foley
“The decision whether a judge’s impartiality can ‘reasonably be questioned’ is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported.” Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 914 (2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reinoehl v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Court for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004) (Scalia, J., sitting alone) (quoting Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment
(2×)
Court for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 916 (2004) (Scalia, J., sitting as a single justice). 27 Id. at 920 . depend upon what degree of political damage a particular case can be expected to inflict.28 Plaintiffs suggest (without case law support) that this case is different from other official- capacity cases because Governor Hutchinson voted for the 2021 reapportionment plan.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Franklin v. Department of Health & Human Services
Court for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004); O'Bannon v. Union Pac.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Moderson v. City of Neenah
Ct. for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 914 (2004) (internal quotations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Allen v. American Cyanamid Co
Court, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004) (Scalia, J., in chambers)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Trammell v. American Cyanamid Co
Court, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004) (Scalia, J., in chambers)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Burton v. American Cyanamid Co
Court, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004) (Scalia, J., in chambers)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Valoe v. American Cyanamid Co
Court, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004) (Scalia, J., in chambers)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gibson v. American Cyanamid Co
Court, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004) (Scalia, J., in chambers)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
ACKIE v. PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS
Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 914 (2004) (Scalia, J.) (citing Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J., respecting recusal)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
DEAN v. PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS
Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 914 (2004) (Scalia, J.) (citing Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J., respecting recusal)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
GOODWIN v. PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS
Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 914 (2004) (Scalia, J.) (citing Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J., respecting recusal)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CHAVARRIA v. PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS
Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 914 (2004) (Scalia, J.) (citing Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J., respecting recusal)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
RAUCEO v. PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS
Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 914 (2004) (Scalia, J.) (citing Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J., respecting recusal)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
File v. Kastner
Court, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004) (Scalia, J., in chambers)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shawn Bradley Hills - Adversary Proceeding
The Allegations of Mr. Sides and the Debtor are Based on Misstatements of Fact, Law, or Both “The decision whether a judge’s impartiality can ‘reasonably be questioned’ is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported.” Cheney, 541 U.S. at 914.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
SouthLaw, PC v. Swanson
Court for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004); O'Bannon v. Union Pac.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Corral v. Martinez
In re Marshall, 721 F.3d 2 | 1032, 1041 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Cheney v. U.S. District Court, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004)). 3 | For all of these reasons, plaintiff's motion for recusal is denied. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to disqualify the 5 | undersigned (ECF No. 6), construed as a motion for recusal, is denied. 6 | Dated: September 13, 2019 Fens Arn g KENDALL J.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cooper v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs
This objective inquiry is made “in light of the facts as they existed, not as they were surmised or reported.” Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 914 (2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cooper v. Shulkin
This objective inquiry is made “in light of the facts as they existed, not as they were surmised or reported.” Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 914 (2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Delaware v. Wright.
(2×)
The other “undersigned prosecutor” had considerably more 109 Lawrence v. Bloomfield Twp., 313 F. A’ppx. 743, 79 (6th Cir. 2008). 110 Cheney, 541 U.S. at 916 (emphasis in original). 44 experience, but he could not name any judge who had recused himself because of friendship with a witness, neither could he recall anything about when this last occurred or even how often it had occurred. 111 In its motion the State argued, again without supporting legal authority, that I should recuse myself because I might be required to rule on evidentiary objections during Captain Browne’s testimony.11…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Hurles v. Charles L. Ryan
Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 929 (2004) (Scalia, J.) (explaining his friendship with then-Vice President Cheney, and deciding not to recuse himself from a case in which Cheney was a nominal party); Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301 , 1301–02 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J.) (discussing his son’s representation of Microsoft in another matter, but deciding 60 HURLES V.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Hurles v. Charles L. Ryan
Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 929 (2004) (Scalia, J.) (explaining his friendship with then-Vice President Cheney, and deciding not to recuse himself from a case in which Cheney was a nominal party); Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301 , 1301–02 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J.) (discussing his son’s representation of Microsoft in another matter, but deciding not to recuse himself because no “well-informed individual would conclude that an appearance of impropriety exists”); Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2011) (Reinhardt, J.) (discussing his rela…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SMITH
v.
DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION.
v.
DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION.
02-11309.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 18, 2004.
Cited by 7 opinions | Published
C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 539 U. S. 986.] Writ of certiorari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46.1. Reported below: 311 F. 3d 661.