Roell v. Withrow’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
103 federal appellate · 40 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 351 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably 135 S. Ct. 1932 - Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif (2015), Wilhelm v. Rotman (2012)
103 federal appellate · 40 district · 3 state decisions
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
reviewedWithrow v. Roell (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3401 · 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 Estelle v. Gamble · Buckhannon Board and Care Home Incs v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources · United States v. Raddatz · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Lurk
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 351 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We think the better rule is to accept implied consent where, as here, the litigant or counsel was made aware of the need for consent and the right to refuse it, and still voluntarily appeared to try the case before the Magistrate Judge. Inferring consent in these circumstances thus checks the risk of gamesmanship by depriving parties of the luxury of waiting for the outcome before denying the magistrate judge’s authority. Judicial efficiency is served; the Article III right is substantially honored.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[u]pon 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation. The order may be made pursuant to a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign or international tribunal or upon the application of any interested person and may direct that the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing be produced, before a person appointed by the court. By virtue of his appointment, the person appointed has power to administer any necessary oath and take the testimony or statement. The order may prescribe the practice and procedure, which may be in whole or part the practice and procedure of the foreign country or the international tribunal, for taking the testimony or statement or producing the document or other thing. To the extent that the order does not prescribe otherwise, the testimony or statement shall be taken, and the document or other thing produced, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A person may not be compelled to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing in violation of any legally applicable privilege.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.