Haynes Bros. Drilling Co. v. Dungan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that recusal was not necessary based on military judge’s “past [pro- fessional] relationship with” a law enforcement witness
• “[D]espite an objective standard, the judge’s statements concerning his intentions and the matters upon which he will rely are not irrelevant to the inquiry.”
• “[D]espite an objective standard, the judge’s statements concerning his intentions and the matters upon which he will rely are not irrelevant to the inquiry.”
• first citing Ward v. Village of Mon- roeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972); and then citing Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)
• “RCM 902(a) is assessed not in the mind of the military judge himself, but ‘rather in the mind of a reasonable man ....’”
• first citing Ward v. Village of Mon- roeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972); and then citing Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).