Legal Opinion
United States v. Hanhardt
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided March 14, 2001No. 00 CR 0853PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
NORGLE, District Judge.
Before the court are Defendants’ motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 47, 144, and 455(a), and motion for disclosure. For the following reasons, both motions are denied.
I. BACKGROUND
In a case that has garnered a bit of public attention, Defendants are charged with violating the criminal RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and conspiracy to commit an offense or fraud against the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371. Defendant William Hanhardt had a long career with the Chicago Police Department, and held several high ranking positions in that Department.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Liteky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- United States v. Frank Peter Balistrieri, Steve Disalvo, and Dennis Librizzi, DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
- United States v. Bonifacio De La Fuente, Ronald Albert Cardenas, George Sierra, Pat Vargas,augie D. Sierra, and Robert StewartCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
- George C. Hook v. The Honorable Joe Billy McDade Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of IllinoisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
- United States v. Grover Cleveland BarnesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Cohee v. McDadeDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2006
- United States v. HanhardtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2001
- United States v. HanhardtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2001
- United States v. HanhardtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2001
- United States v. HanhardtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2006
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.