32 Mass. App. Ct. 97 - Parenteau v. Jacobson’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2018
10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Wilson · Haddad v. Gonzalez · Whitney v. Wellesley & Boston Street Railway Co. · Commonwealth v. Leventhal · Lena v. Commonwealth
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under art. 29 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, judges are to be “as ‘free, impartial, and independent as the lot of humanity will admit.’ ”... Ordinarily, the question of disqualification is left to the discretion must be shown to reverse a decision not to allow recusal. When confronted with a recusal motion, a judge [must] consult first his own emotions and conscience" to prejudice to ascertain if he is free from disabling bias or prejudice ... If the judge passes the internal test of freedom from disabling prejudice, he must next “attempt an objective appraisal of whether this was a proceeding in which ‘his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’ ” Haddad v. Gonzales, supra, quoting from S.J.C. Rule 3:09, Canon 3(C)(1), 382 Mass. 811 (1981). Under the rule, “[cjircumstances where a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned include instances where the judge ‘has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party . . Id., quoting from S.J.C. Rule 3:09, Canon 3(C)(1)(a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.