Legal Opinion
In Re the Extradition of Demjanjuk
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided March 15, 1984No. Misc. 83-349PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BATTISTI, Chief Judge.
Before the Court is Respondent’s Motion for Recusal. 1 Respondent bases his Motion on the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 2 and 455 3 and Canon 3 4 of the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct. Respondent alleges that this Court harbors a personal bias against him and his counsel and favors the Government, and the State of Israel, the party whose interests the Government represents. 5 Respondent maintains that, because this Court is not impartial, he would be denied his right to a fair trial were he required to try…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- United States v. Grinnell Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Berger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- United States v. Joseph Conforte and Sally ConforteCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- Leona Weber, in Behalf of John R. Zimmerman and Billie Zimmerman, Petitioner v. Rudy Garza, U. S. MarshallCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Matter of Extradition of DemjanjukDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1985
- First Interstate Bank of Arizona, N.A. v. Murphy, Weir & ButlerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Lieb v. Tillman (In Re Lieb)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · 1990
- Bank of San Antonio v. Swift (In Re Swift)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · 1991
- Demjanjuk v. PetrovskyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.