Ex parte American Steel Barrel Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

201 federal appellate · 60 district · 40 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 479 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““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. Neither was it intended to paralyze the action of a judge who has heard the case, or a question in it, by the interposition of a motion to disqualify him between a hearing and a determination of the matter heard.””

   20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Berger v. United States · Liteky et al United States

2. ““The provision in the statute, to the effect that 'such affidavit shall state facte and reasons for the belief that such bias or prejudice exists,’ is meaningless, unless construed to require the plaintiff, under oath, at least to assert facts from which a sane and reasonable mind may fairly infer bias or prejudice.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Berger v. United States · In re Equitable Trust Co. of New York

3. ““If Judge Chatfield had ruled that the affidavit had not been filed in time, or that it did not otherwise conform to the requirement of the statute, and had proceeded with the case, his action might have been excepted to and assigned as error when the case' finally came under the reviewing power of an appellate tribunal. Henry v. Speer, 201 Fed. 869 [ 120 C. C. A. 207 ]; Ex parte Fairbank Co. (D. C.) 194 Fed. 978 ; Ex parte Glasgow, 195 Fed. 780 , affirmed by this court in Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U. S. 420 [ 32 Sup. Ct. 753 , 56 L. Ed. 1147 ].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Equitable Trust Co. of New York