Texaco, Inc. v. Chandler, 8216.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 8216.,8216. |
| Citation | 354 F.2d 655 |
| Parties | TEXACO, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Petitioner, v. Honorable Stephen S. CHANDLER, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
George W. Jansen, Los Angeles, Cal., and Phil E. Daugherty, of Ames, Daugherty, Bynum, Black, Ashabranner & Rogers, Oklahoma City, Okl., for petitioner.
Gus Rinehart, Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondent.
Before PICKETT, LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN, HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.
Certiorari Denied March 7, 1966. See 86 S.Ct. 1066.
In this mandamus action Texaco Inc. prays for an order directing Stephen S. Chandler, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, to proceed no further in Hirschfield, et al. v. Texaco, Inc., Civil action No. 64-259, pending in the aforesaid court.
It is alleged that on June 6, 1964, the plaintiffs, Norman Hirschfield, Edward C. Joullian III, and Edward C. Joullian brought the aforesaid action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in which a judgment in the sum of $25,000,000 was sought against the defendant Texaco, Inc. for services rendered; that at the time the action was filed there was pending in the same court an action wherein W. H. Pat O'Bryan sought to recover damages in the sum of $10,000,000 alleged to have been caused by the misconduct of Judge Chandler before a federal grand jury which returned an indictment charging O'Bryan with a felony,1 that in the damage action alleging Judge Chandler to be guilty of malicious prosecution, libel and slander, he was represented by five attorneys headed by John M. Cantrell, an Oklahoma attorney; that Mr. Cantrell was one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the aforesaid Texaco suit; and that Mr. Cantrell continued to represent Judge Chandler in the O'Bryan case until after perfection of an appeal. Judge Chandler moved to dismiss this petition for a writ of mandamus, and later filed what was designated a "Waiver of Oral Argument and Rejoinder." These documents discuss the proceedings in the Texaco case at length, and we treat them as a response.
After the Texaco case was at issue, there were numerous and lengthy hearings on the question of disqualification, and other matters, relating to the case. Judge Chandler repeatedly stated that he did not intend to try the case, but refused to disqualify himself and assign it to another judge. 28 U.S.C. § 455 provides:
"Any justice or judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any case in which he has a substantial interest, has been counsel, is or has been a material witness, or is so related to or connected with any party or his attorney as to render it improper, in his opinion, for him to sit on the trial, appeal, or other proceeding therein."
In Rapp v. Van Dusen, 3 Cir., 350 F.2d 806, it was held that this statute disqualified a United States District Judge from proceeding in a civil case pending before him where attorneys for one of the parties had represented the judge in a mandamus action brought to compel the judge to transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The judge in the mandamus action had no personal interest and was only a nominal party. In that case, at p. 812, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NY State Inspection v. NY State Pub. Emp. Rel.
...Co., 609 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1980); Fredonia Broadcasting 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. Although each of these cases can be distinguished on its facts from ......
-
Chandler v. Judicial Council of Tenth Circuit of United States
...F.2d 55 (C.A.10th Cir. 1962) (en banc), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 915, 83 S.Ct. 718, 9 L.Ed.2d 722 (1963); and Texaco, Inc. v. Chandler, 354 F.2d 655 (C.A.10th Cir. 1965) (en banc), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 936, 86 S.Ct. 1066, 15 L.Ed.2d 853 5. We note that nothing in the statute or its legislat......
-
Cargill, Inc., In re
...Wright, Arthur Miller & Edward Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 3549 at 614 (1984); cf. Potashnick, 609 F.2d at 1110-12; Texaco, 354 F.2d at 657. And while the situation is more attenuated where the judge is being personally represented not by the same attorney but by someone els......
-
U.S. v. Haldeman
...that result was required by old § 455. Id. at 810, 814. 356 The situation here differs radically from that presented in Texaco, Inc. v. Chandler, 354 F.2d 655 (10th Cir. en banc 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 936, 86 S.Ct. 1066, 15 L.Ed.2d 853 (1966), where it was held that old § 455 necessi......