Fred B. Collier v. Honorable Frank A. Picard, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division

237 F.2d 234, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 2888
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 19, 1956
Docket12951_1
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 237 F.2d 234 (Fred B. Collier v. Honorable Frank A. Picard, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fred B. Collier v. Honorable Frank A. Picard, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, 237 F.2d 234, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 2888 (6th Cir. 1956).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A motion has been filed to dismiss this appeal from an order of a district judge refusing to disqualify himself in a proceeding in response to a motion and affidavit of bias or prejudice filed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 144.

The order of which the appellants complain is not appealable. It is not a final decision, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291; it is not such an interlocutory order or decree as is described in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292. In re Chicago Rapid Transit Co., 7 Cir., 1953, 200 F.2d 341, 343, 33 A.L.R.2d 1360; Skirvin v. Mesta, 10 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 668, 671. The denial of a motion and affidavit of bias or prejudice filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 144 can be reviewed upon appeal of an interlocutory order which is appealable or upon appeal from the final decision in the proceeding in which the motion and affidavit were filed. See Korer v. Hoffman, 7 Cir., 1954, 212 F.2d 211, 213, 45 A.L.R.2d 930.

The motion to dismiss this appeal was filed by the Federal Housing Administration. Its standing to make the motion is questionable, since it has not been named as an appellee. A court of appeals has the duty, however, on its own motion to dismiss an appeal which it does not have jurisdiction to hear.

The present appeal in this cause is therefore dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Smith
95 F. App'x 148 (Sixth Circuit, 2004)
United States v. Nathaniel Wilson
919 F.2d 142 (Sixth Circuit, 1990)
City of Cleveland v. Krupansky
619 F.2d 576 (Sixth Circuit, 1980)
Peterson v. McKinley
361 P.2d 60 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1961)
Hoern v. New Britain Machine Co.
287 F.2d 885 (Sixth Circuit, 1961)
Freed v. Inland Empire Insurance Company
174 F. Supp. 458 (D. Utah, 1959)
United States v. Gilboy
162 F. Supp. 384 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 F.2d 234, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 2888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-b-collier-v-honorable-frank-a-picard-united-states-district-judge-ca6-1956.