Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. William Stiversgreen2 sentences2025P. 11, the Court w[ould] entertain properly pled motions for sanctions and consider any and all available sanctions.” But such remarks by a judge “during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.” McKenzie, 2014 WL 575908 , at *4 (quoting United States v. Adams, 722 F.3d 788, 837 (6th Cir. 2013)). 2019I assume you can read.” “[J]udicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.” McKenzie v. McKenzie, No. M2014-00010-COA-T10B-CV, 2014 WL 575908 , at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2014) (quoting United States v. Adams, 722 F.3d 788, 837 (6th Cir. 2013)(internal citations omitted)); Albuquerque Bernalillo Cnty. | 4 | 5 |
Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority v. New Mexico Public Regulation Commissiongreen2 sentences2019Water Utility Authority, 229 P.3d 494, 511 (N.M 2010). 2014Water Utility Authority, 229 P.3d at 511 . | 1 | 2 |
Kathryn A. Duke v. Harold W. Duke, IIIgreen1 sentence2018Id. (citing Duke v. Duke, 398 S.W.3d 665, 671 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012)). “[J]udicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.” United States v. Adams, 722 F. 3d 788, 836 (6th Cir. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Tonya Rhodes v. Craig McDannelgreen1 sentence2017Indeed, “[a] judge’s irritation or exasperation . . ., criticism . . . for perceived delays or failures to follow rules, friction occurring during litigation, or even sanctions and contempt charges do not establish the objective personal bias that would prevent a fair assessment of the merits of the case.” Id. at *5 (citing Rhodes v. McDannel, 945 F.2d 117, 120 (6th Cir.1991); People v. Smith, 410 N.E.2d 973 , 978–79 (Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Liteky v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2014Consequently, “judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.” United States v. Adams, 722 F.3d at 837 (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)); Albuquerque Bernalillo Cnty. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Smith
green
1 sentence2017Indeed, “[a] judge’s irritation or exasperation . . ., criticism . . . for perceived delays or failures to follow rules, friction occurring during litigation, or even sanctions and contempt charges do not establish the objective personal bias that would prevent a fair assessment of the merits of the case.” Id. at *5 (citing Rhodes v. McDannel, 945 F.2d 117, 120 (6th Cir.1991); People v. Smith, 410 N.E.2d 973 , 978–79 (Ill. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.