Hook v. McDade’s Empirical Analysis
89 F.3d 350 · 1996
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Brokaw v. Mercer County (2000), O'Regan v. Arbitration Forums, Inc. (2001)
38 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 664 (Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 455
Relies on Liteky et al United States · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · Berger v. United States · Washington v. Harper · Hopkins v. Arizona Department of Real Estate
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An objective standard is essential when the question is how things appear to the well-informed, thoughtful observer rather than to a hypersensitive or unduly suspicious person .... Trivial risks are endemic, and if they were enough to require disqualification we would have a system of preemptory strikes and judge-shopping, which itself would imperil the perceived ability of the judicial system to decide cases without regard to persons. A thoughtful observer understands that putting disqualification in the hands of a party, whose real fear may be that the judge will apply rather than disregard the law, could introduce a bias into adjudication. Thus the search is for a risk substantially out of the ordinary.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[h]e knows that he ... has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
3 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.