333 F. Supp. 2d 166 - Hoffenberg v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 144 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 455
Relies on Liteky et al United States · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · Berger v. United States · United States v. Yousef · United States v. Lara
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shah be assigned to hear such proceeding. The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“where that representation was limited to the issue of the latter judge's disqualification and did not go to the merits of the case, the disqualification motion had been addressed under a separate docket number, and the issues before the court on the merits were not”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here he [or she] has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.