Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Dilling v. United States

142 F.2d 473

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1944-04-22
Topic: bankruptcy

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Dilling v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 7 opinions

DILLING v. UNITED STATES,142 F.2d 473(D.C. Cir. 1944)

DILLING v. UNITED STATES et al. McWILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES.

Misc. Nos. 52, 53.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Decided April 22, 1944.

Proceedings by Elizabeth Dilling against the United States of America and others and by Joseph McWilliams against the United States of America on petitions to be allowed to file petitions for writs of mandamus or prohibition.

Petitions denied.

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.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.

PER CURIAM.

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.Page 474

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