context: We find it unnecessary to resolve the recusal question presented here, however, because recusal error, if any occurred, was harmless. See Liljeberg v. Health Servs.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 486 U.S. 847, 862
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that "there is surely room for harmless error" in the recusal context because "[tjhere need not be a draconian remedy for every violation of SS 455(a)"
citation_a.sentence: Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 862, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988) (noting that “there is surely room for harmless error” in the recusal context because “[tjhere need not be a draconian remedy for every violation of § 455(a)”). Although we apply the harmless-error doctrine with great caution, we are convinced it applies in this case given the inescapable legal conclusion that the parties reached an enforceable oral settlement agreement.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that district judge's failure to re-cuse was harmless error where the underlying question was "patently clear" and so there was "no need to vacate the district court's decision and to remand to another district court judge to make the same clear determination"
citation_b.sentence: See Morgan v. Money, No. 99-3251, 210 F.3d 372, 2000 WL 178421, at *2 (6th Cir.2000) (unpublished table decision) (holding that district judge’s failure to re-cuse was harmless error where the underlying question was “patently clear” and so there was “no need to vacate the district court’s decision and to remand to another district court judge to make the same clear determination”).