You are here
Nemes v. Bensinger (Charles R. Simpson III, W.D. Ky. 3:20-cv-407)
Because of the global COVID-19 infectious pandemic, some populous counties in Kentucky planned to operate only one polling place each for a primary election in which voting by mail would be encouraged. A federal judge denied a requested injunction to require more polling places.
Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Poll locations; COVID-19; intervention; case assignment; recusal; primary election.
One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.
Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law outlines the statutory framework of federal judicial disqualification law under statutes 28 U.S.C. §§ 455, 144, 47, and 2106. The monograph revises and expands on the previous edition, and analyzes the case law, with a focus both on substantive disqualification standards and procedural requirements.
The PDF of Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law is available below. Requests for the print version will be filled when it becomes available.
Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law (second edition) outlines the statutory framework of federal judicial disqualification law under the statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 455, 144, 47, and 2106. The monograph substantially revises and expands on the first edition, and analyzes the case law, with a focus both on substantive disqualification standards and procedural requirements. It features a revised organizational structure and includes new material, as well as updated cases.
This monograph offers a synthesis and analysis of the case law under 28 U.S.C. 455 and 144 to assist judges in ruling on recusal. After providing a history of Section 455, the monograph identifies the core principles and recurring issues in the voluminous case law and examines, in representative cases, how the courts of appeals have applied these principles. The monograph also covers the application of Section 144 and Section 47, and goes into detail on issues such as timeliness of motions, recusal in bench trials, standing, and the Rule of Necessity.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides for disclosure of finan-cial information from corporate parties in the courts of appeals. The purpose of the rule is to assist appellate judges in identifying if they have financial conflicts of interest for recusal purposes. There is no corresponding national rule governing civil, criminal, and bankruptcy proceedings in the district and bankruptcy courts. The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States is evaluating whether a national rule requiring financial interests disclosure in district and bankruptcy courts is necessary, and if so, how the rule should be structured. To inform its work, the Committee asked the Federal Judicial Center to study the practices and variations in methods used in appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts where financial information from parties is currently being filed. The study includes the courts of appeals, because many of them have local rules on disclosure that supplement the requirements set forth in FRAP 26.1.
An analysis of statutory procedures proposed in the early 1980s, and which continue to arise, that would allow federal litigants to challenge, on a peremptory basis, the federal judge or magistrate judge assigned to their case. Prepared at the request of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, the report discusses the proposals that have been offered on the federal level, analyzes the procedures then in effect in seventeen state court systems, and considers the possible administrative consequences of a federal peremptory challenge procedure.
A brief analysis of the judicial disqualification statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 455, with an index and annotations of reported decisions construing the statute.