Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Liteky Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 03, 1993

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

60 entries 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Liteky v. United
    Search
  2. States - 510 U.S. 540 (1993) October Term, 1993 Syllabus Liteky Et Al. V. United
    Search
  3. doctrine. Pp. 543-556. (a) The doctrine-see United States v. Grinnell
    Search
  4. United States v. Grinnell
    Search
  5. See, e. g., Lyons v. United
    Search
  6. Craven v. United
    Search
  7. recusal. See, e. g., Toth v. Trans
    Search
  8. Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow
    Search
  9. produced unsuppressible judicial animosity), the supposed doctrine would not necessarily be applied. See, e. g., Davis v. Board
    Search
  10. in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case. Berger v. United
    Search
  11. had found recusal required on the basis of judicial remarks made in an earlier proceeding. 546 Rice v. McKenzie
    Search
  12. a). Most Courts of Appeals to consider the matter have rejected this contention, see United States v. Barry
    Search
  13. United States v. Sammons
    Search
  14. McWhorter v. Birmingham
    Search
  15. United States v. Mitchell
    Search
  16. United States v. Merkt
    Search
  17. Johnson v. Trueblood
    Search
  18. United States v. Sibla
    Search
  19. F.2d 864 , 869 (CA9 1980). Some, however, have agreed with it, see United States v. Chantal
    Search
  20. cf. United States v. Coven
    Search
  21. grounds, see Liljeberg v. Health
    Search
  22. to extrajudicial sources, see, e. g., Craven v. United
    Search
  23. Ferrari v. United
    Search
  24. a), see United States v. Coven
    Search
  25. Panzardi-Alvarez v. United
    Search
  26. holding was citation of our opinion almost half a century earlier in Berger v. United
    Search
  27. doctrine. See, e. g., Davis v. Board
    Search
  28. KENNEDY asserts that what we have said in this paragraph contradicts the proposition, established in Liljeberg v. Health
    Search
  29. First, judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. See United States v. Grinnell
    Search
  30. and perhaps of the former as well) is the statement that was alleged to have been made by the District Judge in Berger v. United
    Search
  31. by holding-contrary to our most recent interpretation of the statute in Liljeberg v. Health
    Search
  32. ensure that one side or the other shall prevail, there can be little doubt that he or she must recuse. Cf. Rugenstein v. Ottenheimer
    Search
  33. little justification for its announcement of the extrajudicial source rule, relying only upon a citation to Berger v. United
    Search
  34. opinions or predispositions arising from outside the courtroom need not be disqualifying. See, e. g., United States v. Conforte
    Search
  35. based upon matters disclosed at trial may rise to the level where recusal is required. See, e. g., United States v. Holland
    Search
  36. Nicodemus v. Chrysler
    Search
  37. United States v. Chantal
    Search
  38. judge hear the case. 565 In matters of ethics, appearance and reality often converge as one. See Offutt v. United
    Search
  39. and neutrality can obtain if the bare possibility of a fair hearing is all that the law requires. Cf. Marshall v. Jerrico
    Search
  40. feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done''') (quoting Joint AntiFascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath
    Search
  41. a) and (b) in Liljeberg v. Health
    Search
  42. supra, at 860. Because the appearance of partiality may arise when in fact there is none, see, e. g., Hall v. Small
    Search
  43. United States v. Ritter
    Search
  44. Syllabus Liteky Et Al. V. United
    Search
  45. Lyons v. United
    Search
  46. Toth v. Trans
    Search
  47. Davis v. Board
    Search
  48. Berger v. United
    Search
  49. Rice v. McKenzie
    Search
  50. United States v. Barry
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial