Conflicts of interest in Bush v. Gore: Did some justices vote illegally?

60. United States v. Wolfson, 558 F.2d 59, 62 n.11 (2d Cir. 1977); Roberts v. Bailar, 625 F.2d 125, 128 (6th Cir. 1980); Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189, 1200-01 (7th Cir. 1989); Bernard v. Coyne, 31 F.3d 842, 843 n.1 (9th Cir. 1994).

61. 13A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE [sec] 3550 ( 1984).

62. 28 U.S.C. [sec] 144 (2000). Section 144 provides, in its entirety, as follows:

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the mailer is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.

The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term [session] at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.

63. Id.

64. Id.

65. Id.

66. Code of Conduct for United States Judges, 175 F.R.D. 362 (1998). Pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. [sec][sec] 2071-2077, the Judicial Conference of the United States develops and proposes procedural rules for federal courts, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Federal Bankruptcy Rules. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges was derived from the 1972 ABA Code of Judicial Conduct. The 1972 ABA Code has been superseded by the 1990 ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct.

67. 175 F.R.D. 363, 364 n.1.

68. See E. Wayne Thode, The Code of Judicial Conduct-The First Five Years in the Courts, UTAH L. REV. 395 (1977).

69. 273 U.S. 510(1927).

70. Id. at 516-19.

71. Id. at 519-20.

72. Id. at 523. The due process clause in the Fifth Amendment protects the individual against conduct by officials and employees of the federal government. The due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment does the same against state governments. Individual rights and governmental obligations under the two clauses are identical.

73. Id. at 532 (emphasis added).

74. 409 U.S. 57 (1972).

75. Id. at 58.

76. Id.

77. 411 U.S. 564, 578-79 (1973).

78. Id. at 571.

79. 349 U.S. 133 (1955).

80. Id. at 136.

81. Id.

82. 475 U.S. 813 (1986).

83. Id. at 816.

84. Id. at 816-18, 822.

85. Id. at 822-24. The state supreme court's decision clarified that a tort can be proved, and punitive damages can be obtained, where the insurer pays part but not all of the claim. Previously, it was doubtful whether state law recognized a tort under those circumstances, and earlier state supreme court precedent would have foreclosed punitive damages. The state supreme court decision also clarified that entitlement to a directed verdict on the underlying insurance claim is not a prerequisite to recovery on bad-faith claim, which was arguably unsettled under state law. And the slate supreme court held that the $3.5 million punitive damages award was not excessive. The largest punitive award ever affirmed by the state supreme court was $100,000, which the court had reduced from $1.1 million because the larger amount was, in the state supreme court's words, "obviously the result of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury." Id. at 823, (quoting Gulf Atlantic Life Ins. Co. v. Barnes, 405 So. 2d 916, 926 (Ala. 1981)).