Taylor v. Oxford’s Empirical Analysis
575 F.2d 152 · 1978
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently September 2004 · most notably United States v. Walters (1981), Delgado v. Bowen (1986)
40 federal appellate · 2 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[I]t was not intended that the magistrate would have the power to hear and determine dispositive motions[; i]t was only intended that a judge could assign a dispositive motion to a magistrate for hearing and submission of proposed findings and recommendation to the judge for ultimate disposition.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) magistrate may be assigned such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Innovative experiments may be admirable, and considering the heavy case loads in the district courts, understandable, but experiments must stay within the limitations of the statute.”
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.