In the Matter of Bradford Mason’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 8 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably 194 W. Va. 97 - Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc. (1995), 50 Cal. 4th 372 - Haworth v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2010)
10 federal appellate · 8 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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
Relies on United States v. Nixon · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · Northern Securities Company v. United States · United States v. Balistrieri · In re United States
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hook v. McDade · McCray v. Ryan“[a]n objective standard creates problems in implementation. Judges must imagine how a reasonable, well-informed observer of the judicial system would react. Yet the judge does not stand outside the system; as a dispenser rather than a recipient or observer of decisions, the judge understands how professional standards and the desire to preserve one’s reputation often enforce the obligation to administer justice impartially, even when an observer might be suspicious. Judges asked to recuse themselves hesitate to impugn their own standards; judges sitting in review of others do not like to cast aspersions. Yet drawing all inferences favorable to the honesty and care of the judge whose conduct has been questioned could collapse the appearance of impropriety standard under § 455(a) 4 into a demand for proof of actual impropriety. So although the court tries to make an external reference to the reasonable person, it is essential to hold in mind that these outside observers are less inclined to credit judges’ impartiality and mental discipline than the judiciary itself will be.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Hatcher · In Re: USA v.“Courts that have considered whether pre-judicial political activity is ... prejudicial regularly conclude that it is not.”
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.