Yahoo Canada Web Search

Search results

  1. United States v. Rudometkin, 82 M.J. 396 (RCM 902(a) requires a military judge to disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which that military judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned).

  2. If, following the disclosure, the parties and lawyers agree, without participation by the judge or court personnel, that the judge should not be disqualified, the judge may participate in the proceeding. The agreement shall be incorporated into the record of the proceeding.

  3. No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.

  4. Judges can disqualify themselves sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 455, or on a party's motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 455 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 144. This Overview focuses on moving to disqualify judges who have not disqualified themselves. For more information on motions practice generally, see Overview – Motions Practice.

  5. Any justice, judge, or magistrate, of the United States shall disqualify himself/herself in any proceeding in which his/her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See also 28 U.S.C. Sec. 144; Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3.C(1)(a).

  6. Judicial disqualification is governed by federal statute, and when judges disqualify themselves, they do so most frequently under 28 U.S.C. § 455. This overview covers the basic circumstances in which judges should disqualify themselves.

  7. People also ask

  8. Judicial disqualification and recusal are fundamental to a fair legal system. (“Disqualification” technically refers to a judge’s withdrawal on a party’s motion, as required by law, while “recusal” refers to withdrawal on a judge’s own

  1. People also search for