Legal Opinion

Heavyhitters v. Nike Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 2, 2007No. Nos. 05-56083, 05-56182, 05-56421, 05-56599Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM**

Appellants challenge a multitude of rulings made by the district court in four consolidated cases concerning Nike’s refusal to contract with Heavyhitters. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

1. Appellants claim that the district judge’s rulings were motivated by bias, but nothing they point to in the record supports such an inference. Everything to which appellants direct our attention is not, under Pesnell v. Arsenault and Liteky v. United States, a valid basis for such a claim:

“[Jjudicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. In…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Liteky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. Samuel "Wesley" McCabe and John Elson v. General Foods Corporation, Alan Moltz, Abner Ladson and Does 1-100Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
  5. Gates v. DeukmejianCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API