United States v. Ritter
| Decision Date | 08 December 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 6238.,6238. |
| Citation | 273 F.2d 30 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner, v. Honorable Willis W. RITTER, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Utah, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Harold S. Harrison, Washington, D. C. (Perry W. Morton and Roger P. Marquis, Washington, D. C., with him on brief), for petitioner.
Dennis McCarthy, Salt Lake City, Utah (Milton A. Oman, Salt Lake City, Utah, was with him on brief), for respondent.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT, LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
This matter comes on for consideration upon application of the United States to set aside an order of the respondent, Honorable Willis W. Ritter, in Civil No. C 36-53, entitled Bill Hatahley, et al. v. United States of America, in which the court denied petitioner's motion that all further proceedings in that case be heard before another judge, and for an entry of a judgment on the mandate from this court. The application also seeks to prohibit the respondent from setting the principal case for retrial before himself.
The respondent, although having been duly served with notice, has filed no response and did not appear either in person or by counsel. However, the interested parties in the principal case have filed a response in opposition to the relief sought and appeared by counsel in support of same.
When the case was first here in United States v. Hatahley, 10 Cir., 220 F.2d 666, 670, we observed that it had been "tried in an atmosphere of maximum emotion and a minimum of judicial impartiality." But on certiorari the Supreme Court, 351 U.S. 173, 76 S.Ct. 745, 750, 100 L.Ed. 1065, did not think that "the trial was conducted so improperly as to vitiate" the trial court's findings. On the second appeal after retrial, 10 Cir., 257 F.2d 920, 925, limited to the issue of damages, we again observed that "a casual reading of the two records leaves no room for doubt that the District Judge was incensed and embittered, perhaps understandably so, by the general treatment over a period of years of the plaintiffs and other Indians * *"; that "From his obvious interest in the case, illustrated by conduct and statements made throughout the trial * * * we are certain that the feeling of the presiding Judge is such that, upon retrial he cannot give the calm impartial consideration which is necessary for a fair disposition of this unfortunate matter, and he should step aside." We accordingly suggested that when the case was remanded to the district court, the trial judge should "take appropriate preliminary steps to the end that further proceedings in the case be had before another Judge," citing La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290. The suggestion was made in the exercise of appellate supervisory control and in the interest of proper judicial administration.
After denial of certiorari (Hatahley v. United States, 358 U.S. 899, 79 S.Ct. 222, 3 L.Ed.2d 148) the mandate filed December 12, 1958, reversed the case for a new trial as to damages only, and carried forward our suggestions that further proceedings be had before another judge. But on the assumption that in these circumstances...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Rourke v. City of Norman
...(1986); Verniero v. Air Force Academy Sch. Dist. No. 20, 705 F.2d 388, 395 (10th Cir.1983) (McKay, J., dissenting); United States v. Ritter, 273 F.2d 30, 32 (10th Cir.1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 950, 80 S.Ct. 863, 4 L.Ed.2d 869 (1960); United States v. Hatahley, 257 F.2d 920, 926 (10th Ci......
-
Lummus Company v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Company
...Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed. 2d 988 (1959), the right to trial before an unbiased judge, United States v. Ritter, 273 F.2d 30, 32 (10 Cir.1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 950, 80 S.Ct. 863, 4 L. Ed.2d 869 (1960), In re Union Leader Corp., supra, or the right to trial d......
-
Mitchell v. Sirica, 74-1492
...Corp. v. Chandler, 303 F.2d 55 (10th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 915, 83 S.Ct. 718, 9 L.Ed.2d 722 (1963); United States v. Ritter, 273 F.2d 30 (10th Cir. 1959), cert, denied, 362 U.S. 950, 80 S.Ct. 863, 4 L.Ed.2d 869 (1960); Gladstein v. McLaughlin, 230 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1955); Conn......
-
Cascade Natural Gas Corporation v. El Paso Natural Gas Co People of State of California v. El Paso Natural Gas Co Southern California Edison Co v. El Paso Natural Gas Co, s. 4
...Judge to hear the case. Cf. United States v. Hatahley, 10 Cir., 257 F.2d 920, 926, 79 A.L.R.2d 668 and its sequel, United States v. Ritter, 10 Cir., 273 F.2d 30, 32; Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Chandler, 10 Cir., 303 F.2d 55, 57; Texaco, Inc. v. Chandler, 10 Cir., 354 F.2d 655, Reversed. ......