context: The failure to object to those rulings when the district court still had an opportunity to correct any irregularity constitutes acquiescence. See Liljeberg v. Health Servs.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 486 U.S. 847, 868
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that remedies for violations of the recusal statute depend on making "a timely request for rehef'
citation_a.sentence: Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 868, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988) (stating that remedies for violations of the recusal statute depend on making “a timely request for rehef’); see also Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that failure to raise issues or raising issues too late constitutes waiver); E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1295 (9th Cir.1992) (“To hold otherwise would encourage parties to withhold recusal motions, pending a resolution of their dispute on the merits, and then if necessary invoke [recusal] in order to get a second bite at the apple.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 967 F.2d 1280, 1295
citation_b.parenthetical: "To hold otherwise would encourage parties to withhold recusal motions, pending a resolution of their dispute on the merits, and then if necessary invoke [recusal] in order to get a second bite at the apple."
citation_b.sentence: Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 868, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988) (stating that remedies for violations of the recusal statute depend on making “a timely request for rehef’); see also Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that failure to raise issues or raising issues too late constitutes waiver); E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1295 (9th Cir.1992) (“To hold otherwise would encourage parties to withhold recusal motions, pending a resolution of their dispute on the merits, and then if necessary invoke [recusal] in order to get a second bite at the apple.”).