Smith v. Pepsico, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no basis for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 where plaintiff’s attorney was a law clerk for the presiding judge several years prior
• noting the practice but commenting that “[t]here is a paucity of reported decisions setting forth recusal periods in various districts”
• prevailing custom in Southern District of Florida is a one-year disqualification period
• recusal not required under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) when plaintiff's attorney was law clerk for judge for period of two years ending more than two years ago
• where trial judge was former law partner of a firm appearing before court, recusal not required
• where trial judge was former law partner of a firm appearing before court, recusal not required

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).