Recuse, Recusal

[Fred Shapiro]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Baker, John wrote:

>         An earlier case takes the term back to 1817, though not in the
> reflexive form ("recused himself") common today:
>
>         >>A judge cannot be recused because his wife is collaterally related
> by consanguinity to the wife of a party to the suit.
>
> Poydras v. Livingston, 5 Mart. (o.s.) 292 (La. 1817).  The first line is
> from the headnote, which might have been added later.  The opinion refers to
> the 24th section of the act of 1817, which presumably would be the real
> antedating.  I don't have that old statute.  The modern one appears to be

I have looked at the original case and statute in hard copy.  The 1817
case has "recusation," but not any form of "recuse."  The act of 1817 has
none of these words in it.

Fred Shapiro


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred R. Shapiro                             Editor
Associate Librarian for Public Services     YALE DICTIONARY OF QUOTATIONS
  and Lecturer in Legal Research            Yale University Press,
Yale Law School                             forthcoming
e-mail: fred.shapiro at yale.edu               http://quotationdictionary.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------