Smith v. Sikorsky Aircraft, CV 75-3773-AAH.
| Decision Date | 20 August 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 75-3773-AAH.,CV 75-3773-AAH. |
| Citation | 420 F. Supp. 661 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | Joseph P. SMITH and Theresa F. Smith, Plaintiffs, v. SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT, etc., et al., Defendants. |
Nichols & Rose and Richard A. Perkins, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs.
Kirtland & Packard, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants.
ORDER TO REASSIGN CASE AND NOTICE TO COUNSEL
The undersigned Judge, to whom the above-entitled case was assigned pursuant to Local Rule 2, is of the opinion that he should not proceed further in said case by reason of the facts that:
(1) He has just learned today, August 19, 1976, that the law firm of Nichols and Rose, representing plaintiffs, had on August 17, 1976, associated Richard A. Perkins, Esq. as counsel for plaintiffs herein.
(3) Because of the aforesaid, the undersigned Judge, although he expressly finds that he has no personal bias or prejudice concerning any party herein or any personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, and does not have any other personal interest in the proceedings herein which would tend to disqualify him, nevertheless finds that his impartiality "might reasonably be questioned," as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), and as virtually identically provided in Canon 3C of the "Code of Judicial Conduct" adopted and promulgated by the United States Judicial Conference at its April 5-6, 1973 Session, Conf.Rept.1973, pp. 9-11, as amended at its September 14-17, 1973 Session, Conf.Rept.1973 p. 52, at its March 7-8, 1974 Semi-Annual Session, Conf.Rept.1974,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NY State Inspection v. NY State Pub. Emp. Rel.
...Corp., Inc. v. RCA Corp., 569 F.2d 251 (5th Cir.1978); Texaco, Inc. v. Chandler, 354 F.2d 655 (10th Cir.1965); and Smith v. Sikorsky Aircraft, 420 F.Supp. 661 (C.D. Cal.1976). Although each of these cases can be distinguished on its facts from the circumstances herein, it is enough to obser......
-
Cargill, Inc., In re
...mem., 767 F.2d 905 (1st Cir.1985); Miller Indus., Inc. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 516 F.Supp. 84 (D.Ala.1980); Smith v. Sikorsky Aircraft, 420 F.Supp. 661 (C.D.Cal.1976). See also Varela v. Jones, 746 F.2d 1413 (10th Cir.1984); S.J. Groves & Sons Co. v. I.B.T., 581 F.2d 1241 (7th Cir.1978)......
-
United States v. Conforte
...cases in which judges relied on the canons as a basis on which to disqualify themselves before a trial had begun. Smith v. Sikorski Aircraft, 420 F.Supp. 661 (C.D.Cal. 1976); Spires v. Hearst Corp., 420 F.Supp. 304 (C.D.Cal.1976). There do not appear to be any cases reversing a lower court'......
-
Carbana v. Cruz
...in Mr. Nachman's cases before this Court for a period of two years from the date of this judge's induction. Smith v. Sikorsky Aircraft, 420 F.Supp. 661 (D.C. Calif.1976). Wherefore, I hereby disqualify myself from this case. The Clerk is hereby instructed to return the case to the assigning......