Janet Smith and David Smith v. J. Joseph Danyo, M.D

How courts have described this case

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

• considering whether the party seeking recusal participated in pretrial motion litigation or invoked the participation of the court since first learning of a bias or prejudice as a factor to determine if a recusal motion was timely
• attitude judge may entertain toward subject matter of a case, here sentiment that personal injury suits do not belong in federal courts, does not disqualify him
• “The Smiths also object that some rulings were wrong. Such errors, even compounded, do not satisfy the requirements of [§] 144.”
• “In judging the sufficiency of section 144 affidavits ... [a court] must determine that the facts establish ‘fair support' for the charge of bias.”
• “there is a world of difference between a charge of bias against a party as a member of a class and a bias in favor of a particular legal principle.”
• court of appeals held that even if requirement of Rule 7(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).