Spangler v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
District Court, S.D. Indiana
1Opinion of the Court
ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECUSAL
TINDER, District Judge.
I. General Background
In the federal courts, a party with a reasonable suspicion that the judge is biased may seek to have the judge removed from the case. In such a situation, the judge is required to retire from the case if “an objective, disinterested observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal [is] sought would entertain a significant doubt that justice would be done in the case” were the judge to continue. Pepsico, Inc. v. McMillen, 764 F.2d 458, 460 (7th Cir.1985). Indeed, a judge is…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- United States v. Grinnell Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- In Re Diana R. Beard, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1987
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. ArmstrongIndiana Supreme Court · 1982
- In Re International Business MacHines Corporation, United States of America v. International Business MacHines CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Cohee v. McDadeDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2006
- State Ex Rel. Whitehead v. Madison County Circuit CourtIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
- Sexson v. ServaasDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 1993
- United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Lake Shore Asset Management Ltd.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2008
- McBeth v. Nissan Motor Corp. USADistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1996
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.