Donaldson v. Ducote’s Empirical Analysis
373 F.3d 622 · 2004
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Lister v. Department of Treasury (2005), Hasse v. Rainsdon (In Re Pringle) (2013)
6 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Baugh v. Taylor · Roell v. Withrow · Ambrose v. Welch · Trufant v. Autocon, Inc. · United States v. Cooper
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress has created a limited exception to this rule: Under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c)(1), a district court, with the voluntary consent of the parties, may authorize a magistrate judge to conduct proceedings and enter final judgment in a case; such judgment is then appeal-able to the circuit court directly. Because this process requires the parties to waive their constitutional rights to an Article III judge, we have held that a case does not fall within the jurisdictional ambit of § 636(c) unless the parties’ consent to proceed before a magistrate judge is clear and unambiguous.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.