DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smith v. Smith, 564 P.2d 1266.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    “Judicial rulings alone do not support a finding of bias or partiality without a showing of an extrajudicial source of bias or a deep-seated favoritism.” Stagecoach Trails MHC, ¶ 21 (App. 2013); (“[T]he bias and prejudice necessary to disqualify a judge must arise from an extra-judicial source and not from what the judge has done in his [or her] participation in the case.”).
  • Alexandra K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Alexandra K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶ 14 (App. 2014); Stagecoach Trails HMC, ¶ 21 (App. 2013) ("Judicial rulings alone do not support a finding of bias or partiality without a showing of an extrajudicial source of bias or a deep- seated favoritism.")
  • Prescott v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Prescott v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Moreover, “[i]t is generally conceded that the bias and prejudice necessary to disqualify a judge must arise from an extra-judicial source and not from what the judge has done in his participation in the case.”
  • hertz/coy v. Coy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • hertz/coy v. Coy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Importantly, the bias and prejudice required for disqualification “must arise from an extra- judicial source and not from what the judge has done in [the judge’s] participation in the case.”
  • In the Matter of Lisa M. Aubuchon 309 P.3d 886 Ariz. 2013
  • In the Matter of Lisa M. Aubuchon 309 P.3d 886 Ariz. 2013
    See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551 (1994) (holding that a judge is not biased or prejudiced if the judge forms opinions as a result of knowledge obtained in earlier proceedings); (deciding that, generally, “the bias and prejudice necessary to disqualify a judge must arise from an extra-judicial source and not from what the judge has done in his participation in the case”).
  • Smith v. Mitchell 148 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Smith v. Mitchell 148 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    (“It is generally conceded that the bias and prejudice necessary to disqualify a judge must arise from an extra-judicial source and not from what the judge has done in his participation in the case.”).
  • Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 120 P.3d 1092 Ariz. 2005
  • Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 120 P.3d 1092 Ariz. 2005
    As the Ninth Circuit stated: “‘[A] judge is not disqualified merely because a litigant sues or threatens to sue him.’ Such an easy method for obtaining disqualification should not be encouraged or allowed.'” Ronwin v. State Bar of Arizona, 686 F.2d at 70l, quoting United States v. Grismore, 564 F.2d 929, 933 (10th Cir. 1977)
  • Mervyn's v. Superior Court 879 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Mervyn's v. Superior Court 879 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    The Respondent Judge based his decision on the concept that the “bias and prejudice necessary to disqualify a judge must arise from an extra-judicial source and not from what the judge has done in his participation in the case” ( , ).
  • State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
    “It is generally conceded that the bias and prejudice necessary to disqualify a judge must arise from an extra-judicial source and not from what the judge has done in his participation in the case.” , (citing United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 , 86 S.Ct.
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
    (recusal not required in criminal case where trial judge has heard unfavorable remarks about defendant during prior trial of codefendant); , (party’s law *174 suit pending against trial judge for his actions during the course of proceedings insufficient to require recusal for bias).
  • State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    Although involving different facts, , “It is generally conceded that the bias and prejudice necessary to disqualify a judge must arise from an extra-judicial source and not from what the judge has done in his participation in the case.” We agree that the rule that a trial judge must be impartial, “does not mean that
  • State v. Thompson 724 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Thompson 724 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    Although involving different facts, , “It is generally conceded that the bias and prejudice necessary to disqualify a judge must arise from an extra-judicial source and not from what the judge has done in his participation in the case.” We agree that the rule that a trial judge must be impartial, “does not mean that
  • Matter of Ronwin 680 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1983
  • Matter of Ronwin 680 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1983
    Ronwin v. State Bar of Arizona, 686 F.2d at 701, quoting United States v. Grismore, 564 F.2d 929, 933 (10th Cir.1977)
  • State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
  • Clark v. Clark 603 P.2d 506 Ariz. 1979
  • Clark v. Clark 603 P.2d 506 Ariz. 1979
  • Marce v. Bailey 636 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Marce v. Bailey 636 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979