Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 660 F.2d 291 - Margoles v. Johns

Margoles v. Johns’s Empirical Analysis

660 F.2d 291 · 1981

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
5
states following
April 2021
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably United States v. Murphy (1985), Del Vecchio v. Illinois Department of Corrections (1994)

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

31019811990200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 455

Relies on Tumey v. State of Ohio · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · Ungar v. Sarafite · Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank · Stoll v. Gottlieb

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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““A litigant is denied the fundamental fairness to which he is constitutionally entitled if the judge of his ease is unfairly biased against him. However, a litigant is not denied due process by either the ‘appearance’ of partiality or by circumstances which might lead one to speculate as to a judge’s impartiality. A litigant is denied due process if he is in fact treated unfairly.” 660 F.2d at 296 , (emphasis of the court).”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “where there [is] actually some incentive [for the judge] to find one way or the other, i.e., financial considerations [ Ward, 93 S.Ct. 80 ; Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); Aetna, 106 S.Ct. 1580 ] or previous participation by the trying judge in the proceedings at which the contempt occurred [ In re Murchison, 75 S.Ct. 623 ; Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 , 94 S.Ct. 2697, 2704-05 , 41 L.Ed.2d 897 (1974); Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455 , 91 S.Ct. 499, 504-05 , 27 L.Ed.2d 532 (1971)].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “some [actual] incentive to find one way or the other”
    2 later decisions 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.