Wilmington Towing Co. v. Cape Fear Towing Co., 85-14-CIV-7.

Decision Date16 January 1986
Docket NumberNo. 85-14-CIV-7.,85-14-CIV-7.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
PartiesWILMINGTON TOWING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. CAPE FEAR TOWING COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

Petree, Stockton, Robinson, Vaughn, Glaze & Maready, F. Joseph Treach, Jr., Jeffrey C. Howard, Winston-Salem, N.C., for plaintiff.

Burney, Burney, Barefoot, Bain & Crouch, John J. Burney, Jr., Wilmington, N.C., Leonard, M. Gozdecki, Zido, Behnke, Eugene E. Gozdecki, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

ORDER

BRITT, Chief Judge.

This matter is pending before the court on motion by defendant, Cape Fear Towing Company, Inc., for entry of an order of recusal pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 455. Defendant has filed a memorandum in support of its motion; plaintiff has filed a memorandum in opposition thereto; and the matter is ripe for ruling.

My son, Clifford P. Britt (Cliff), is a student at the Wake Forest University School of Law in Winston-Salem, scheduled to graduate in May 1986. He has accepted employment with the law firm of Petree, Stockton & Robinson beginning in August or September 1986, presumably depending upon his successful completion of his final year of law school and the bar examination as administered by the North Carolina Board of Law Examiners. Petree, Stockton & Robinson are counsel for plaintiff. During the summer of 1985 Cliff worked as a summer associate in the corporate section of Petree, Stockton & Robinson for five weeks. At no time during this temporary employment was he involved in any way with the present litigation.

Title 28, United States Code, Section 455 provides as follows:

(a) Any ... judge ... shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
. . . . .
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
. . . . .
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding.
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

Defendant bases its motion solely on the fact that Cliff worked for the Petree, Stockton & Robinson law firm during the summer of 1985 and has tentatively accepted employment with said law firm after his graduation from law school, thus bringing the question of recusal under section 455(b)(5)(ii). In fact, in its brief defendant specifically states: "Defendant does not ... question ... the ... impartiality of ... Judge Britt."

An analysis of section 455(b)(5)(ii) is, therefore, in order. By its very terms the disqualification cited is applicable only when the relative is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding. Of course, it is quite evident from reading this record that my son is not a lawyer as he is yet to complete his course of study in law school and pass the bar examination. Further, even if it were to be assumed that he were a lawyer within the meaning of that term as used in this provision, he has not "acted" as a lawyer in this proceeding. It is undisputed that during the five weeks when he worked as an associate with the Petree, Stockton & Robinson firm in the summer of 1985 he did not become involved in any way with this litigation. As pointed out by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit the provision in question requires actual participation. "The fears of judicial bias that might result from an offspring's active participation in a proceeding do not merit automatic disqualification of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Adair v. State, Dept. of Educ.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • January 31, 2006
    ...where judge's daughter was a partner in the law firm that represented one of the parties); Wilmington Towing Co., Inc. v. Cape Fear Towing Co., Inc., 624 F.Supp. 1210 (E.D.N.C., 1986) (disqualification not required where judge's son worked as a summer associate and had tentatively accepted ......
  • Cloverdale Equip. Co. v. Manitowoc Engineering Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • January 13, 1997
    ...fees because his son was an associate in the law firm representing one of the parties); Wilmington Towing Company, Inc. v. Cape Fear Towing Company, Inc., 624 F.Supp. 1210 (E.D.N.C.1986), cert. denied, 481 1028, 107 S.Ct. 1953, 95 L.Ed.2d 526 (1987) (recusal not required when judge's son ha......
  • Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • June 19, 1996
    ...782 (1978) (relative's salary interest as an associate insufficient to require recusal); Wilmington Towing Co., Inc., v. Cape Fear Towing Co., Inc., 624 F.Supp. 1210, 1211 (E.D.N.C.1986) (same, summer associate); Miller Indus., Inc. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 516 F.Supp. 84, 86 (S.D.Ala.19......
  • Trimble v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 28, 1994
    ...found that that sole circumstance was sufficient to reverse a conviction on grounds of lack of fairness. Wilmington Towing Co. v. Cape Fear Towing Co., 624 F.Supp. 1210 (EDNC 1986) (judge not disqualified by son's summer internship in law firm representing a party); State v. Loera, 530 So.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT