Belue v. Leventhal’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[J]udicial rulings and “opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings” almost “never constitute a valid basis for a partiality motion.” Likewise, judicial remarks that are “critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.” The high bar set by [the Supreme Court in] Liteky for predispositional recusals makes good sense. If it were otherwise — if strong views on a matter were disqualifying — then a judge would hardly have the freedom to be a judge.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Byers

2. “[R]ecusal decisions 'reflect not only the need to secure public confidence through proceedings that appear impartial, but 11 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER also the need to prevent parties from too easily obtaining the disqualification of a judge, thereby potentially manipulating the system for strategic reasons, perhaps to obtain a judge more to their liking.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kondaur Capital Corporation v. Matsuyoshi

3. “[C]ourts have increasingly proved willing to conclude that pro hac vice attorneys should not be disqualified under standards and procedures any different or more stringent than those imposed upon regular members of the district court bar.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of New Hampshire v. Carlos Gonzalez, III