green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
14.0 score
G Cite
cited 8× by 7 distinct cases, 1995–2014 · 4 courts ·
…there is as much obligation for a judge not to recuse when there is no occasion for him to do so as there is for him to do so when there is.
at p. 1070
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 1999–2026 · 4 courts ·
…conclusions, rumors, beliefs and opinions are not sufficient to form a basis for disqualification.
at p. 1070
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2023–2024 ·
…a judge, having been assigned to a case, should not recuse himself on unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation.
at p. 1070
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Gallant
(2×)
thus, each count of the indictment involving a draw upon a line of credit would constitute a separate execution of the scheme and would be punishable as a separate crime.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Holland
LoCascio v. United States, 473 F.3d 493, 496 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Clemens, 428 F.3d at 1178 (“The reasonable person in this context means a well- informed, thoughtful observer, as opposed to a hypersensitive or unduly suspicious person.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); but see In re Nettles, 394 F.3d 1001, 1002 (7th Cir. 2005) (“We must bear in mind that these outside observers are less inclined to credit judges’ impartiality and 5 We, along with our sister circuits, have identified various matters which will not ordinarily require recusal under § 455: (1) “rum…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Holland
Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501 (1974) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Dellinger, 472 F.2d 340 (7th Cir. 1972) (trial of the “Chicago Seven”). 5 We, along with our sister circuits, have identified various matters which will not ordinarily require recusal under § 455: (1) “rumor, specula- tion, beliefs . . . and similar non-factual matters;” (2) “the mere fact that a judge has previously expressed an opinion on a point of law;” (3) “prior rulings in the proceeding;” (4) “mere familiarity with the defendant(s) or the type of charge;” (5) “b…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Musleh
First, the district court’s no-notice imposition of restitution contravened the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(l)(C), which states that “the court ... must allow the parties’ attorneys to comment on the probation officer’s determinations and other matters relating to an appropriate sentence.” In Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 135-36 , 111 S.Ct. 2182 , 115 L.Ed.2d 123 (1991), the Supreme Court explained that implicit in the right to comment on “matters relating to [an] appropriate sentence” — in that case, a sua sponte upward departure — is “…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Frank Dennis FELIX, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Frank Dennis FELIX, Defendant-Appellant
89-7058.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
May 21, 1992.
John Raley, U.S. Atty., and Paul G. Hess, Asst. U.S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl., for plaintiff-appellee., Scott M. Anderson, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Holloway, Seymour, Anderson.
Published
Citer courts: N.D. California (1)
ORDER
This matter comes on for consideration of the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1877, 118 L.Ed.2d 25, reversing the judgment of this court entered February 28, 1991, 926 F.2d 1522, and remanding the case to this court for further proceeding in accordance with the opinion of that court.
Upon consideration whereof, it is ordered as follows:
1. The mandate issued to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on April 16, 1991, is recalled.
2. The judgment of this court entered February 28, 1991, is vacated except as to Counts 9 and 10 of the indictment, on which we affirmed the convictions and sentences.
3. The convictions, sentences and special assessments on Counts 1 through 6 are AFFIRMED and should be reinstated by the district court in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.
4. The mandate shall reissue forthwith.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in all respects.