Eckert v. Wilkins

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that disqualification was not indicated under section 455(a) and stating that “[i]t is simply not enough to voice disagreement with previous rulings by [the judge]” or “to complain that [the judge] did not expressly consider some of petitioner’s motions”
• stating that finality for purposes of res judicata is when the district court issues its judgment
• explaining that under federal common law, “a final judgment retains all of its res judicata consequences pending decision of the appeal” (internal quotations omitted)
• stating that finality for purposes of res judicata is when the district court issues its judgment
• upholding denial of recusal motion based on adverse rulings by trial judge
• upholding denial of recusal motion based on adverse rulings by trial judge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).