Recusal

In re Basham, 208 B.R. 926 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997), aff’d, In re Byrne, 152 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 1998)
    Reasonable person test

In re Goodwin, 194 B.R. 214 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996)
    1. 144 does not apply to bankruptcy judges
    2. Alleged ex parte contract with attorney to make sure court was notified if party appeared so security could be arranged was not a ground for recusal under § 455

Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540 (1994)
    (1) Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality recusal motion
    (2) Opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts or events occurring in the course of the current or prior proceedings do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.  Thus, judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge. at 1157

Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1993)
    Recusal issue raised based on judge’s conduct in previous cases

In re Georgetown Park Apartments, Ltd., 143 B.R. 557 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1992)
    Standard reviewed
28 U.S.C. § 455(a) is applicable to bankruptcy judges pursuant to bankruptcy rule 5004(a).  This provision imposes a self-imposing duty on a judge, but its provision may be asserted by a party.  United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869 (9th Cir. 1980). The bias which mandates recusal must be one which is personal and must stem from extra-judicial source.  United States v. Carignan, 600 F.2d 762, 764 (9th Cir. 1979), Unites States v. Conforts, at 869.  Knowledge obtained in earlier proceedings in the same case is not extra-judicial.  Unites States v. Winston, , at 223.  Nor may a judge’s views on legal issues serve as a basis for disqualification.  United States v. Conforte, at 882
    Generally, the judge whose recusal is sought is required to review the recusal affidavit to determine whether it is legally sufficient, assuming the truth of the allegations therein.  If the judge determines that the allegations are legally sufficient, then the motion must be referred to another judge. See United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1980), 28 U.S.C. § 144.  A reasonable person standard applies United States v. Winston, 613 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1980)