Baltuff v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there is no 21 jurisdiction over an interlocutory order denying a motion for recusal
• holding that there is no 1 On August 14, 2019, the court entered a vexatious litigant order against Ms. 2 Miner. See In re Madiha Miner, No. MS19-0106JLR (W.D. Wash.), Dkt # 1; see also 3 Miner v. Soc. Sec. Admin., et al., No. C19-0821JLR (W.D. Wash.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Skirvin v. Mesta
  Tenth Circuit· 1944-03-09· cited 80×
• Herman Dubnoff v. Honorable David J. Goldstein, Referee in Bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
  Second Circuit· 1967-09-14· cited 48×
• United States v. Washington
  Ninth Circuit· 1978-04-24· cited 21×
• United States of America v. State of Washington
  Ninth Circuit· 1978-04-24· cited 13×
• Bowles v. Culhane
  Seventh Circuit· 1945-10-22· cited 2×

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• McColgan v. Lineker
  Ninth Circuit· 1923-05-07· cited 9×

Other cases named Baltuff v. United States

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Baltuff v. United States
  Ninth Circuit· 1928-10-15· cited 2×