We will not disturb a decision regarding disqualification unless “there has been an abuse of discretion, that is, if the record reveals no reasonable basis for the decision.” Id. at 40, 633 A.2d at 710. ¶ 16. Here, there is no basis to disturb the denial of defendant’s motions. Defendant has offered no evidence to lend factual support to any of his allegations of prejudice. The fact that the trial judge has previously ruled against him does not, in itself, constitute evidence of bias. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. . . . Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”); Luce v. Cushing, 2004 VT 117, ¶ 23, 177 Vt. 600, 868 A.2d 672 (mem.) (<HOLDING>). Regarding the trial judge’s law firm, in its
holding no prejudice occurred because no new information was presented on the material matter in dispute holding that physician is not required to identify and disclose every chance no matter how remote of the occurrence of every possible birth defect no matter how insignificant holding that rulings not challenged on appeal are implicitly affirmed holding that first amendment provides no protection against private actions no matter how egregious holding that adverse rulings no matter how erroneous or numerous are not sufficient to establish prejudice quotations omitted