Legal Opinion
In Re Marion S. Barry
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided October 8, 1991No. 91-3255PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
2Per curiam
Upon consideration of the emergency motion for stay and the opposition thereto and the emergency petition for writ of mandamus and the responses thereto, it is
*914ORDERED that the emergency petition for writ of mandamus be denied. Assuming a petition for writ of mandamus is the proper vehicle for obtaining review of the district court’s refusal to recuse, petitioner has not made a “clear and indisputable” showing of entitlement to such relief. See Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 1143, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988).
Defendant’s motion for recusal was…
3Cases cited4 opinions
- Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States v. HaldemanCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1976
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. First City Financial Corporation, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
- United States v. Robert H. Campbell, United States of America v. Excavation Construction, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1982
4Cited by23 opinions
- United States v. Microsoft Corp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2001
- In Re: Boston's Children FirstCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2001
- United States v. Fokker Services B.V.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2016
- Ex Parte Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2003
- United States v. Marion S. Barry, Jr.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1992
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.