Williams v. McNeil’s Empirical Analysis
557 F.3d 1287 · 2009
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably United States v. Glover (2012), Lodge v. Kondaur Capital Corp. (2014)
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Thomas v. Arn · Houston v. Lack · United States v. Raddatz · Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co. · Murray v. United States
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] district court has discretion to decline to consider a party's argument when that argument was not first presented to the magistrate judge.”
1 later decision 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.