Mitchell v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * The section of the applicable statute (section 21 Judicial Code, title 28 USCA § 25) provides that ‘no such affidavit [an affidavit of bias and prejudice] shall be filed unless accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record that such affidavit and application are made in good faith.’ The phrase ‘counsel of record’ in the statute means an attorney at law admitted to the bar in the case. One who is not a member of the bar cannot be counsel of record even though the record on its face may show he had undertaken to appear as counsel. Since Mr. Payne was not on the date of the filing of either of the affidavits a member of the bar of the court, he could not then or at any earlier time have been counsel of record in the case for either of the affiants. The purpose of the provision of the statute requiring certificate of good faith by counsel of record is that the court may be assured that the affidavit is made in good faith through the certificate to that effect made by one who is a sworn officer of the court, regularly admitted as an attorney to practice at the bar of the court. The requirement is not technical. It is one of the essential requirements of the statute. As the affidavits were not certified to be made in good faith by counsel of record, the motions to strike 4 them for insufficiency in law were properly sustained and Judge Otis ‘having,’ as he stated, ‘no consciousness whatever of any prejudice against any of the parties or in favor of any,’ the duty to con”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 245 F. Supp. 772 - United States v. Hoffa

2. “The purpose of this section is to secure for all litigants a fair and impartial trial before a tribunal completely divested of any personal bias or prejudice, either for or against any part to the proceedings, and it is the duty of all courts to scrupulously adhere to this admonition and to guard against any appearance of personal bias or prejudice which might generate in the minds of litigants a well-grounded belief that the presiding judge is for any reason personally biased or prejudiced against their cause. But the statute, by its own terms, provides a safeguard against the abuse of the privilege granted by the statute, and that well-founded safeguard is the requirement that the affidavit must be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record, and without which the affidavit is ineffectual to disqualify the judge. This requirement is founded on the assumption that a member of the bar or counsel of record will not indulge in reckless disregard of the truth, and further attests to the good faith and belief of the affiant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 929 F. Supp. 334 - Robinson v. Gregory