Patterson v. Mobil Oil Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that even though the State Board of Insurance has formally forbidden such a plan, the use of this arrangement did not affect an employer’s status as a subscriber
• cautioning that “the public may be more inclined to lose faith in the system if this court were to mindlessly vacate [the recused judge’s] rulings”
• finding that a judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied plaintiffs’ motion to recuse himself because of previous employment with counsel representing the defendant in earlier litigation
• stating three-part test extends to disqualifications under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)
• “[W]e are confi- dent that § 455(b) violations are also subject to the doctrine of harmless error.”
• “[W]e are confi- dent that § 455(b) violations are also subject to the doctrine of harmless error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).