Cited by

Conduct Rule 2.3(A); (stating that a judge must perform the duties of the office impartially).

d 596, 603 (Minn. 2008).

(concluding State failed to meet its burden to show judge was partial); (“The challenging party has the burden of proving actual bias.”).

the question is whether an objective examination of the facts and circumstances would cause a reasonable examiner to question the judge’s impartiality.”

“The mere fact that a party declares a judge partial does not in itself generate a reasonable question as to the judge’s impartiality.” -02 (Minn. 2008).

11 examiner to question the judge’s impartiality.”

But “opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings” do not show that a judge is biased “unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” State v. Burrell (In re State), (quoting Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)).

[The special master] assures the Court that the paralegal has ‘no contact’ with this case in her current role.” In the context of rule 2.11(A), the fundamental inquiry for disqualification “is whether an objective examination of the facts and circumstances would cause a reasonable examiner to question the judge’s impartiality.”

(quoting State v. Burrell¸ ).

But “[t]he mere fact that a party declares a judge partial does not in itself generate a reasonable question as to the judge’s impartiality.” State v. Burrell (In re State), - 02 (Minn. 2008).

d 596, 603 (Minn. 2008) (placing burden on the complaining party to “adduce evidence of favoritism or antagonism”).

Second, actual bias does not result from a judge’s comments that constitute “a valid observation based on the history of the case” rather than “prejudgment on the merits of the underlying charges.”

See State v. Burrell , - 02 (Minn. 2008) (“The mere fact that a party declares a judge partia l does not in itself generate a reasonable question as to the judge ’s impartiality.”).

overcome this presumption with “evidence of favoritism or antagonism.”

State v. Burrell , 1 (Minn. 2008).

But, “[t]he mere fact that a party declares a judge partial does not in itself generate a reasonable question as to the judge’s impartiality.” -02 (Min n. 2008).

In determining whether a judge should be disqualified for bias under the Code of Judicial Conduct, “the question is whether an objective examination of the facts a nd circumstances would cause a reasonable examiner to question the judge’s impartiality.” State v. Burrell , see also Minn. Code Jud.

24 impartiality.” State v. Burrell , -02 (Min n. 2008).

“The mere fact that a party declares a judge partial does not in itself generate a reasonable question as to the judge’s impartiality.” - 02 (Minn. 2008).

current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they di splay a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” (quotation omitted).

Rather than Schlienz, is more analogous.

Whether an ap pellate court will review a notice of removal without a properly filed petition for writ of prohibition depends on “the circumstances of th[e] case.” In re OCC, LLC , d at 90 n.3 ; see, e.g. , (reviewing petition for writ of mandamus filed three days after the district court denied removal).

The presumption may be rebutted by evidence of “favo ritism or antagonism.”

(noting that it is presumed that judges will neutrally and objectively approach cases and the burden is on the party alleging bias to defeat this presumption).

" State v. Burrell , , 601 (Minn. 2008) (quoting McClelland , d at 219 ); see also Minn. State Bar Ass'n v. Divorce Educ.

-02 (Minn. 2008) ( “The mere fact that a party declares a judge partial does not in itself generate a reas onable question as to the judge’s impartiality.”).

App. 2008) (), review denied (Nov.