U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1944

Dilling v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided April 22, 1944 · Arnold, Curtam, Edgerton, Groner

142 F.2d 473; 79 U.S. App. D.C. 47; 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3417 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Elizabeth Dilling, pro se, for petitioner, in No. 52., Joseph E. McWilliams, pro se, for petitioner, in No. 53., Philip R. Miller, Special Attorney, Department of Justice, for -respondent United States, in Nos. 52 and 53.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

John N. Mitchell v. Honorable John J. Sirica, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1974)
William J. Green, Jr. v. Honorable John W. Murphy, United States of America, Intervenor (3d Cir. 1958)
Lawrence D. Coleman v. The Honorable Arthur L. Burnett, United States Magistrate for the District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1973)
In the Matter of United Shoe Machinery Corporation, Movant (1st Cir. 1960)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURTAM.

Petitioners ask us to issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition to the trial judge to disqualify himself as a result of affidavits of bias and prejudice filed against him. The petitions show that the judge rejected the affidavits because they failed to comply with the statutory requirements both as to the time of filing and as to the manner of certification. 28 U.S.C.A. § 25. If he was in error in so ruling, then undoubtedly the remedy of appeal exists. Even assuming that we have the power to issue the writ where the error, if any, can be corrected on appeal, we are of opinion that we ought not to exercise that power except in rare and extraordinary cases. We do not believe that the circumstances of the present case, especially since the trial is now in progress, are such as to warrant the issuance of the writ.1

Petitions denied.

Ex parte American Steel Barrel Co., 230 U.S. 35, 45, 33 S.Ct. 1007, 57 L.Ed. 1379.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.