Cooper v. Oa Brookshire’s Empirical Analysis
70 F.3d 377 · 1995
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Coleman v. Johnson (1999), Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles (2009)
18 federal appellate · 3 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Houston v. Lack · Nebraska v. Wyoming · Laughlin v. Internal Revenue Service · Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Garay · Elliott v. Perez
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For a magistrate judge to decline to follow a district judge’s opinion may be unusual, but when (1) both parties consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, and (2) the district judge specifically designates the magistrate judge to conduct civil proceedings, the magistrate judge “may act in the capacity of a district court judge” and is not bound by prior opinions expressed by the district court judge. See McGinnis v. Shalala, 2 F.3d 548, 551 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1191 , 114 S.Ct. 1293 , 127 L.Ed.2d 647 (1994); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c) (1988 & Supp. V 1993); Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir.1995).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The [defendants] then moved to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint was time-barred. After both parties consented to have the magistrate judge order the entry of final judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c) — and despite the prior opinion of the district judge to the contrary — that magistrate judge granted the [defendants’] motion and dismissed the complaint as untimely.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[u]nskilled in law, unaided by counsel, and unable to leave the prison, a pro se prisoner's control over the processing of his notice necessarily ceases as soon as he hands it over[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Spotville v. Cain
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.