Legal Opinion

Spangler v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

District Court, S.D. Indiana

Decided March 6, 1991No. IP 87-1013-CPublishedCited by 13 opinions

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

  1. United States v. Grinnell Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. United States v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
  3. In Re Diana R. Beard, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1987
  4. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. ArmstrongIndiana Supreme Court · 1982
  5. 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

  1. Cohee v. McDadeDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2006
  2. State Ex Rel. Whitehead v. Madison County Circuit CourtIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Sexson v. ServaasDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 1993
  4. United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Lake Shore Asset Management Ltd.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2008
  5. McBeth v. Nissan Motor Corp. USADistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1996

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API