Roberts v. Bailar’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 federal appellate · 8 district · 7 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Easley v. University of Michigan Board of Regents · United States v. Cumberland Wood and Chair Corporation, Robert Kupchick, and Jerry Pawlak

2. “Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Browning v. Foltz · Traficant v. Commissioner

3. “survey the other district judges to determine whether there are any district judges who either have none of the kinds of contacts articulated by the court here, or who have such minor contacts as to render that judge and the litiga-tive process unassailable.” Appendix B at 67. While that approach is reasonable on its face, it would be inconsistent with the spirit and purpose of our blind, random draw system, to which I have already referred. 1 . Title 28 U.S.C. § 144 provides, in part: 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 shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.... Title 28, U.S.C. § 455 (a) provides: Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.... 2 . This kind of criticism could go both ways given that the court has identified contacts not only with the defendant and his counsel, but with counsel for the government as well. In the event of acquittal or in the event of conviction, there will be those people (including some of those described by the First Circuit in In Re United States as "objective, knowledgeable member[s] of the public”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Mavroules