Recusal

Displaying 1 - 10 of 13, sorted by most recent

form.antibot { display: none !important; } You must have JavaScript enabled to use this form.

Ballot Petitions Do Not Have to Be Multilingual

Robert Timothy Reagan, Margaret S. Williams, Marie Leary, Catherine R. Borden, Jessica L. Snowden, Patricia D. Breen, Jason A. Cantone

November 12, 2023

Padilla v. Lever (Alicemarie H. Stotler, 8:02-cv-1145), Imperial v. Castruita (R. Gary Klausner, 2:05-cv- 8940), and Chinchay v. Verjil (Audrey B. Collins, 2:06-cv-1637) (C.D. Cal.) and Madrigal v. County of Monterey (5:06-cv-1407), Melendez v. Board of Supervisors (5:06-cv-1730), Rangel v.

Challenges to the 2020 Vote Count in Nevada

Robert Timothy Reagan

November 2, 2023

Stokke v. Cegavske (Andrew P. Gordon, D. Nev. 2:20-cv-2046)

Bad-Faith Litigation by a Felon to Get on the Ballot

Robert Timothy Reagan, Margaret S. Williams, Marie Leary, Catherine R. Borden, Jessica L. Snowden, Patricia D. Breen, Jason A. Cantone

September 14, 2023

Blakely v. City of Laurel Clerk Office (Keith Starrett, S.D. Miss. 2:13-cv-72)

Unsuccessful Litigation by a Write-In Candidate to Have the Incumbent’s Candidacy Declared Illegitimate

Robert Timothy Reagan

September 13, 2023

Anders v. Benson (Matthew F. Leitman, 4:20-cv-11991), Davis v. Wayne County Board of Canvassers (Nancy G. Edmunds, 2:20-cv-12127), and Davis v. Benson (Robert H. Cleland, 3:20-cv-12130) (E.D. Mich.)

No Relief from Reductions in Polling Locations in Kentucky During a Pandemic

Robert Timothy Reagan

August 22, 2023

Nemes v. Bensinger (Charles R. Simpson III, W.D. Ky. 3:20-cv-407)

No Immediate Relief from Expanded Absentee-Voting Opportunities During an Infectious Pandemic Because of a Delay in Bringing the Case

Robert Timothy Reagan

August 2, 2023

Curtin v. Virginia State Board of Elections (Rossie D. Alston, Jr., E.D. Va. 1:20-cv-546)

Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law, Third Edition

Charles G. Geyh

August 17, 2020

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.

Appendix E-10: Middle District of Tennessee — General Procedure Order

March 1, 2010

Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law, Second Edition

Charles G. Geyh

January 1, 2010

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.

Recusal: Analysis of Case Law Under 28 U.S.C. 455 & 144 [Superseded]

Alan Hirsch

January 1, 2002

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.

Federal Judicial Center

You are here

Recusal

Ballot Petitions Do Not Have to Be Multilingual

Challenges to the 2020 Vote Count in Nevada

Bad-Faith Litigation by a Felon to Get on the Ballot

Unsuccessful Litigation by a Write-In Candidate to Have the Incumbent’s Candidacy Declared Illegitimate

No Relief from Reductions in Polling Locations in Kentucky During a Pandemic

No Immediate Relief from Expanded Absentee-Voting Opportunities During an Infectious Pandemic Because of a Delay in Bringing the Case

Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law, Third Edition

Appendix E-10: Middle District of Tennessee — General Procedure Order

Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law, Second Edition

Recusal: Analysis of Case Law Under 28 U.S.C. 455 & 144 [Superseded]

Pages