Amidon v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• suggesting that in such a case it is unclear that the trial judge rendered a thorough and thoughtful sentencing decision
• holding that AS 22.20.020(a) requires re-cusal if there is bias
• noting that AS 22.20.020 does not require recusal, but that the judge should give weight to preserving the appearance of impartiality in light of provisions in the Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct
• noting that the reviewing court may not overturn the decision of the trial court unless \it is plain that a fair-minded person could not rationally come to that conclusion on the basis of the known facts\
• noting that the reviewing court may not overturn the decision of the trial court unless \it is plain that a fair-minded person could not rationally come to that conclusion on the basis of the known facts\
• “When the judge does not recuse himself, the decision should be reviewable on appeal only if it amounted to an abuse of discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).