concluding that "timeliness may not be disregarded in all cases regarding disqualification under Section 455" and that "the facts of the present case are well suited to a timeliness requirement"
Summary of this case from United States v. BarrettNo. 81-2379.
October 4, 1982.
C.A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 218 U. S. App. D.C. 289, 675 F. 2d 308.
concluding that "timeliness may not be disregarded in all cases regarding disqualification under Section 455" and that "the facts of the present case are well suited to a timeliness requirement"
Summary of this case from United States v. BarrettFull title:PROCTOR et al. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. et al
Court:U.S.
Date published: Oct 4, 1982
The claims of Yachts for compensation for the taking of approximately eight acres of marina property…
Yu v. ClaytonTests and qualifying exams can satisfy the hearing requirements of procedural due process ( Lucero v. Ogden…