Mathews v. Weber’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
295 federal appellate · 389 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,546 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Thomas v. Arn (1986), Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. (1982)
295 federal appellate · 389 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedWeber v. Secretary of Health, Education, & Welfare (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 923 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1336 · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 604 · 28 U.S.C. § 631 (Federal Magistrate Act of 1979) · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1395 (§ 1801 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on La Buy v. Howes Leather Co. · Palmore v. United States · Costarelli v. Massachusetts · Wingo v. Wedding
Cited together with United States v. Raddatz · Thomas v. Arn · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Wingo v. Wedding
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 1,546 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[t]he authority--and the responsibility--to make an informed, final determination ... remains with the judge,'”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary— (A) a judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this sub-paragraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. (B) a judge may also designate a magistrate to conduct hearings, including evi-dentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion excepted in subparagraph (A), of applications for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement. (C) the magistrate shall file his proposed findings and recommendations under subparagraph (B) with the court and a copy shall forthwith be mailed to all parties. Within ten days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court s”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] magistrate exercising 'additional duties' jurisdiction remains constantly subject to the inherent supervisory power of the district judge and the judge retains the 'ultimate responsibility for decision making in every instance.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Colorado Building and Construction Trades Council, an Unincorporated Labor Organization, Garnisher-Plaintiff v. B.B. Andersen Construction Co., Inc., a Kansas Corporation, Bank Iv, Topeka, N.A., Intervenor-Appellee v. Regional Transportation District, Garnishee/assignee-Appellant · United States v. Jones
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.