Withrow v. Roell’s Empirical Analysis
288 F.3d 199 · 2002
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Paul v. A. Levy & J. Zentner Co. · Mims v. Browning Manufacturing · King v. Pennsylvania · Drake v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. · Moosa v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]pon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge ... may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case, when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roell v. Withrow“[w]hen, pursuant to § 636(c)(1), the magistrate judge enters [a] final judgment, lack of consent and defects in the order of reference are jurisdictional errors”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roell v. Withrow“determine whether the parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge and, if so, whether the consents were oral or written.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roell v. Withrow
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.