Suh v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
630 F.3d 685 · 2011
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 455
Relies on Tumey v. State of Ohio · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute · Ward v. Village of Monroeville
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n the absence of any possibility of actual bias-that is, based solely on how the situation might have 'appeared' to an outside observer ... [t]he Supreme Court has never held, or even intimated, that the due process clause requires recusal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“an appearance of bias on the part of a federal judge, without more, violates the Due Process Clause.”
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.