Dilling v. United States
| Decision Date | 22 April 1944 |
| Docket Number | 53.,Misc. No. 52 |
| Parties | DILLING v. UNITED STATES et al. McWILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Elizabeth Dilling, pro se, for petitioner, in No. 52.
Joseph E. McWilliams, pro se, for petitioner, in No. 53.
Philip R. Miller, Special Attorney, Department of Justice, for respondent United States, in Nos. 52 and 53.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
Petitioners ask us to issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition to the trial judge to disqualify himself as a result of affidavits of bias and prejudice filed against him. The petitions show that the judge rejected the affidavits because they failed to comply with the statutory requirements both as to the time of filing and as to the manner of certification. 28 U.S.C.A. § 25. If he was in error in so ruling, then undoubtedly the remedy of appeal exists. Even assuming that we have the power to issue the writ where the error, if any, can be corrected on appeal, we are of opinion that we ought not to exercise that power except in rare and extraordinary cases. We do not believe that the circumstances of the present case, especially since the trial is now in progress, are such as to warrant the issuance of the writ.1
Petitions denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Sirica, 74-1492
...335 U.S. 909, 69 S.Ct. 412, 93 L.Ed. 442 (1949); Hurd v. Letts, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 233, 152 F.2d 121 (1945); Dilling v. United States, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 47, 142 F.2d 473 (1944); Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. v. Molyneaux, 70 F.2d 545 (8th Cir. 1934); Henry v. Speer, 201 F. 869 (5th Cir. 1913).22......
-
Coleman v. Burnett
...Flasphaler, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 82, 228 F.2d 53, cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 76 S.Ct. 1033, 100 L.Ed. 1491 (1956); Dilling v. United States, 79 U.S. App.D.C. 47, 142 F.2d 473 (1944); Bartlesville Zinc Co. v. ICC, 58 App. D.C. 316, 317, 30 F.2d 479, 480, cert. denied, 279 U.S. 856, 49 S.Ct. 351,......
-
Green v. Murphy, 12616.
...petitioner by way of appeal. Korer v. Hoffman, supra; Hurd v. Letts, 1945, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 233, 152 F.2d 121; Dilling v. United States, 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 47, 142 F.2d 473; Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. v. Molyneaux, 8 Cir., 1934, 70 F.2d 545. We think that the remedy which can be afford......
-
In Re United Shoe Machinery Corporation, 5638 (Original).
...of the affidavit before reaching the question of power. See Williams v. Kent, 6 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 342; Dilling v. United States, 1944, 79 U.S.App. D.C. 47, 142 F.2d 473. In 1947 a civil antitrust action was instituted by the government against petitioner in the District of Massachusetts.......