# United States v. Bernard E. Meyer, and Philip J. Hirschkop

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · January 20, 1972 · 462 F.2d 827

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9458365

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America v. Bernard E. MEYER Et Al., and Philip J. Hirschkop, Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** January 20, 1972
- **Citations:** 462 F.2d 827; 149 U.S. App. D.C. 212; 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11743
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tamm
- **Judges:** Miller, McGowan, Tamm
- **Cited by:** 41 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9458365

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding recusal may be required even in summary contempt proceeding if there is “a sufficient possibility of bias to make disqualification necessary to preserve the integrity of the judiciary”
- describing necessity for recusal when the judge “has adopted an adversary posture with respect to the alleged contemnor, as in Murchison and Johnson ”

## Opinion text

TAMM, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the disposition made of this case. In doing so I distinguish this case upon a factual basis from our recent opinion in In re Brown, 147 U.S. App.D.C.-, 454 F.2d 999 (1971). The obvious and pronounced differences between the circumstances resulting in our Brown opinion and the factors in the present ease require me to distinguish our present case from that of Brown.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9458365. Public record. Not legal advice.