Robert A. Bieber v. Department of the Army

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an administrative judge’s conduct during the course of a Board proceeding warrants a new adjudication only if the administrative judge’s comments or actions evidence “a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible”
• holding that an administrative judge’s conduct during the course of a Board proceeding warrants a new adjudication only if the administrative judge’s comments or actions evidence “a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible”
• holding that an administrative judge’s conduct during the course of a Board proceeding warrants a new 3 adjudication only if the administrative judge’s comments or actions evidence “a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible”
• noting that it is not the function of an appellate court to “re-weigh conflicting evidence”
• explaining that an administrative judge’s conduct warrants a new adjudication only if his conduct reflects “a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible”
• explaining that an administrative judge’s conduct during the course of a Board proceeding warrants a new adjudication only if the administrative judge’s comments or actions evidence a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).