Legal Opinion
United States v. Eisenberg
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided March 22, 1990No. Crim. 89-218PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LECHNER, District Judge.
Defendant Richard O. Bertoli (“Bertoli”) filed this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (“section 455(a)”) and Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rule 32”) for recusal because he asserts there may be a question of my impartiality as a result of comments he previously made about me and because I may have received data about Bertoli while presiding over a prior case, United States v. Cannistraro, Crim. No. 87-193 (the “First Cannistraro Indictment”), involving co-defendant Richard S. Cannistraro (“Cannistraro”). Succinctly stated, Bertoli…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- United States v. Ruth StudleyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- United States v. Richard R. SiblaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- United States v. Joseph Conforte and Sally ConforteCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- In Re International Business MacHines Corporation, United States of America v. International Business MacHines CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- Mitsui Shintaku Ginko K. K., Tokyo v. DodgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- United States v. Richard O. BertoliCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- United States v. BertoliDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1994
- United States v. EisenbergDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1991
- United States v. CannistraroDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1992
- United States v. EisenbergDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.