Limeco, Inc. v. Division of Lime, Civ. A. No. GC81-162-WK-O.
| Decision Date | 25 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. GC81-162-WK-O. |
| Citation | 571 F. Supp. 710 |
| Parties | LIMECO, INC., Plaintiff, v. The DIVISION OF LIME, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
Michael Farrell, Michael S. Allred, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff.
Robert E. Sanders, Oscar P. Mackey, Jackson, Miss., Alben N. Hopkins, Gulfport, Miss., for defendants.
ORDER OF VOLUNTARY RECUSAL
The Division of Lime, et al., defendants appearing through the Attorney General of Mississippi, has moved for the voluntary disqualification or recusal of the undersigned judge from presiding over any further proceedings in this cause. Although the case has been on our docket for at least two years and has been the subject of significant substantive and several procedural orders, the defendants' motion for recusal was not filed until July 19, 1983.1
This delay, which on its face appears belated, is nevertheless understandable in view of the unique ground assigned which of necessity required diligence as well as resourcefulness on the part of defense counsel. The motion accurately documents the fact that in the year 1942 when House Bill No. 182 to establish limestone crushing plants in the State of Mississippi as a statesponsored function came to a vote on Tuesday, January 6, 1942, one William C. Keady, then a duly elected representative from Washington County, joined eight other House members in voting against the measure which passed by a vote of 115 for to 11 against. Further, that after House Bill No. 182 was unanimously passed by the Senate and was returned to the House for concurrence on Senate amendments, then Representative Keady joined other House members in adopting the measure on final passage in a vote of 119 for and none against. Defendants' motion avers that the original vote against the measure was a formal and official expression of opinion by Representative Keady that the State of Mississippi should not mine and crush agricultural lime and not sell such lime to the citizens of Mississippi at cost, and asserts that the expression of such opinion is one which might reasonably draw into question his impartiality as judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(3). The movants further represent that no record exists to determine the full intent of the legislature in passing such bill and that only members thereof would have knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts relating to intent, not available to litigants or their attorneys, thus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jeffers v. Ricketts, CIV 85-0945 TUC ACM.
...on federal statutes 28 U.S.C. ?? 144 and 455. See, United States v. Carmichael, 726 F.2d 158 (4th Cir.1984); Limeco, Inc. v. Division of Lime, 571 F.Supp. 710 (N.D.Miss.1983). This court cannot consider the standard that would apply to this court's own proceedings, but rather, is limited to......
-
Leaman v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Retardation & Development Disabilities
...Justice Frankfurter, and Civil Rights Litigation, 1946-1960," 100 Harv.L.Rev. 817 (1987)--but aside from Limeco, Inc. v. Division of Lime, 571 F.Supp. 710 (N.D.Miss.1983), where a senior district judge recused himself from a case involving a bill for which he had voted as a legislator more ......
-
U.S. v. State of Ala.
...forty years earlier even though he confessed that he had absolutely no recall of what actions, if any, he took. Limeco, Inc. v. Division of Lime, 571 F.Supp. 710 (N.D.Miss.1983). See also United States v. Yagid, 528 F.2d 962, 965 (2d Cir.1976); W. Clay Jackson Enter., Inc. v. Greyhound Leas......
-
Buell v. Mitchell
...they were members of Congress." 825 F.2d at 949. The Leaman court also indicated that only one published case, Limeco, Inc. v. Division of Lime, 571 F. Supp. 710 (N.D. Miss. 1983), has taken a contrary position. In Limeco, a senior district judge recused himself from a case involving the St......