DAVIS ET AL.

v.

BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY ET AL.; AND PARRISH ET AL. V. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE ALABAMA STATE BAR ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (153 total)

• Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1979)
  …cyrus-Erie Co., 579 F. 2d 714, 725 (CA2 1978); Samuels v. Empresa Lineas Maritimas Argentinas, 573 F. 2d 884, 887-889 (CA5 1978), cert. pending, No. 78-795; Dodge v. Mitsui Shintaku Ginko K. K. Tokyo, 528 F. 2d 669, 671-673 (CA9 1975), cert. denied, 425 U. S. 944 (1976); Shellman v. United States Lines, Inc., 528 F. 2d 675, 679-680 (CA9 1975), cert. denied, 425 U. S. 936 (1976). See also Cella v. Partenreederei MS Ravenna, 529 F. 2d 15, 20 (CA1 1975) (indicating agreement with Dodge, supra), cert. denied, 42…
• Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994)
  …duced unsuppressible judicial animosity), the supposed doctrine would not necessarily be applied. See, e. g., Davis v. Board of School Comm’rs of Mobile County, 517 F. 2d 1044, 1051 (CA5 1975) (doctrine has “pervasive bias” exception), cert. denied, 425 U. S. 944 (1976); [*546] Rice v. McKenzie, 581 F. 2d 1114, 1118 (CA4 1978) (doctrine “has always had limitations”). Whatever the precise contours of the “extrajudicial source” doctrine (a subject to which we will revert shortly), it is the contention of peti…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. The City OF Miami, 664 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …’s decision to enter the decree unless the district court abused its discretion in approving the decree. See United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Indus., Inc., 517 F. 2d 826, 850 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied sub nom. Harris v. Allegheny-Ludlum Indus., 425 U.S. 944, 96 S.Ct. 1684, 48 L.Ed.2d 187 (1976). It is inconceivable to me how the majority can justify its decision to vacate a most substantial portion of the consent decree without fully discussing the context in which the decree was approved. Not only doe…

  ← 1 / 2 →