State v. Herbert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “State and federal courts have been virtually unanimous in holding thatabsent a showing of actual bias-a judge who presided over prior proceedings involving one or more parties presently before the court is not thereby disqualified from presiding over later proceedings involving the same parties. Flamm, Judicial Disqualification (1996) 345, Section 12.3.1. See, e.g., In re Disqualification of Basinger (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1237 , 674 N.E.2d 351 ('a judge who presided at trial is not disqualified from ruling on a subsequent petition for post-conviction relief,' and 'a judge who presided in a criminal trial is not precluded from considering the defendant's motion to vacate the sentence imposed'); State v. D'Ambrosio (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 185, 188 , 616 N.E.2d 909 ('A judge need not recuse himself simply because he acquired knowledge of the facts during a prior proceeding'); United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers, Union No. 33 v. Meese (C.A.1, 1987), 823 F.2d 652, 659 ('It is well established * * * that participation in prior proceedings involving the same or similar facts or parties does not in itself constitute grounds for disqualification').”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Donald