United States v. Mmr Corp. And James B. Rutland

How courts have described this case

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

• finding the defendant’s recusal arguments to be “foreclosed by the principle that adverse rulings in a case are not an adequate basis for demanding recusal”
• presenting the history of the Larrison Rule in the Fifth Circuit
• “if the government used false testimony that it knew or should have known was false, then the standard applied for newly discovered evidence is slightly more lenient.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).