United States v. Michael Lovaglia, Martin Clune and Peter Pavlisak

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a judge should recuse himself if “a reasonable person, knowing all the facts,” would conclude that his “impartiality could reasonably be questioned”
• holding that the district judge did not abuse his discretion before sentencing defendants even though he had a prior relationship with the alleged victims because, in part, his relationship with the victim had ended seven or eight years prior
• holding recusal not required where case involved a family whom district judge had known personally seven or eight years earlier
• explaining that delay is not a basis for recusal and denying Lettieri’s motion for recusal “[b]ecause this Court has no bias and knows no reason why its impartiality might be questioned”
• affirming denial of motion to recuse based on business and social relationships that had long ceased
• reviewing the denial of a recusal motion for abuse of discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).