Tucker v. Kerner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 federal appellate · 8 district · 8 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . Every member of this Court, every member of any court, every judge, when he hears a case or writes an opinion must form an opinion on the merits and, oft times, no doubt an opinion relative to the parties involved. But this does not mean that the judge has “a personal bias or prejudice”. If it did, the disqualification of judges would be a matter of every day rather than the unusual and extraordinary occurrence which the statute is designed to meet.” Id. p. 84.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. City of Anchorage · 120 F. Supp. 80 - United States v. Valenti

2. “(a) A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action or criminal prosecution from a State court shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending a verified petition containing a short and plain statement of the facts which entitle him or them to removal together with a copy of all process, pleadings and orders served upon him or them in such action. (b) The petition for removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within thirty days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter. * * * # * # (d) Each petition for removal of a civil action or proceeding, except a petition in behalf of the United. States, shall be accompanied by a bond with good and sufficient surety conditioned that the defendant or defendants will pay all costs and disbursements incurred by reason of the removal proceedings should it be determined that the case was not removable or was improperly removed,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fakouri v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc. · 279 F. Supp. 876 - Proteus Foods & Industries, Inc. v. Nippon Reizo Kabushiki Kaisha

3. ““The basis of the disqualification is that ‘personal bias or prejudice’ exists, by reason of which the judge is unable to impartially exercise his functions in the particular case. It is a provision obviously not applicable save in those rare instances in which the affiant is able to state facts which tend to show not merely adverse rulings already made, which may be right or wrong, but facts and reasons which tend to show personal bias or prejudice. It was never intended to enable a 'discontented litigant to oust a judge because of adverse rulings made, for such rulings are reviewable otherwise, but to prevent his future action in the pending cause. * * * ” See also Gallarelli v. United States, 260 F.2d 259 , 261 (1 Cir. 1958).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Simmons v. United States · 400 F. Supp. 497 - Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.