Austin v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The judicial department has recognized that reasonable regulations may be made by the legislative branch in the matter of prescribing certain disqualifications of a judge to act. Those regulations were laid down generally in sections 170, 171, and 172 of the Code of Civil Procedure as originally enacted. They provided for disqualification for bias, prejudice, or interest and for the most part were a continuation of the civil law or the common law on the subject, and were based on the eternal verity that disinterest and impartiality are indispensable in the proper administration of justice. In this state, prior to the enactment of section 170.5 in 1937, the question of the existence of bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge was one of fact to be alleged under oath and to be subject to judicial determination. Nothing is said in the new section about bias, prejudice, interest, or any other recognized ground for disqualification. No showing, ex parte or otherwise, is required and no reason need be given for thus stripping the judge of his judicial functions. No more is required to accomplish that result than the arbitrary and undisclosed reason and purpose of the litigant or his attorney. “No statute has been brought to our attention or discovered by research which has gone to the length of section 170.5 in thus placing the exercise of judicial power, duty and responsibility subject to the whim and caprice of a lawyer or litigant, and no court decision has been cited o”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State ex rel. Peery v. District Court of the Fourth Judicial District · 106 Wis. 2d 31 - State v. Holmes

2. ““1. Any party to any civil action or proceeding pending in any court except the supreme court is entitled to a peremptory challenge against the judge assigned to try or hear the case, subject to the provisions’of this section. The peremptory challenge shall be filed in writing with the clerk of the court in which the case is pending and a copy served on the opposing party. The filing shall be accompanied by a fee of $ 100 which the clerk shall transmit to the state treasurer. The fee shall be deposited in the state treasury to the credit of the state general fund for the support of district judges’ travel. “2. Except as provided in subsection 3, the peremptory challenge shall be filed: “(a) Not less than 30 days before the date set for trial or hearing of the case; or “(b) Not less than 3 days before the date set for the hearing of any pretrial matter. “3. If a case is not assigned to a judge before the time required for filing the peremptory challenge, the challenge shall be filed: “(a) Within 3 days after the party or his attorney is notified that the case has been assigned to a judge; or “(b) Before the jury is empaneled, evidence taken or any ruling made in the trial or hearing, whichever occurs first. “4. If one or two or more parties on one side of an action or proceeding files a challenge, no other party on that side may file a separate challenge, but each is entitled to notice of the challenge and may file the name of any other judge to whom he would object. When the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. Goldman

3. “(P. 75.) But Code of Civil Procedure, section 170.5, “must ... be held to be unwarranted and unlawful interference with the constitutional and orderly processes of the courts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 173 Cal. App. 2d 624 - Oppenheimer v. Ashburn