Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School District’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.2d 452 · 1983
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 48 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 158 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2016 · most notably Thomas v. Arn (1986), Templeman v. Chris Craft Corp. (1985)
72 federal appellate · 48 district · 1 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. § 2072 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on United States v. Raddatz · Patterson v. United States · Mathews v. Weber · Hullum v. United States · United States v. Walters
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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“failure to file objections does not waive the right to appeal [a] district court's conclusions of law”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The [Federal Magistrate] Act’s sponsors made it clear that magistrates remain subject to the supervision of the district judges and that the authority for making final decisions remains at all times with the judge. Under § 636(b)(1)(B) the authority and the responsibility to make an informed, final determination rests with the judge. The delegation of duties to the magistrate does not violate Article III if the ultimate decision is made by the district court. The court’s power to “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate” exists whether objections have been filed or not. The district court must decide for itself whether the magistrate’s report is correct. Without this judicial review, the magistrate’s performance of the inherently judicial act of granting a motion to dismiss would be constitutionally suspect. This court has held that a district court with responsibility to make an ultimate decision based on a magistrate’s recommendation under § 636(b)(1)(A) should consider the legal issues involved, [citing Campbell ]. We have also held that, in a § 636(b)(1)(B) proceeding, failure to object to a magistrate’s finding of fact waives the right to contest those findings on appeal, [citing McCall ]. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have held that failure to file objections does not waive the right to appeal the district court’s conclusions of law. We agree. Supervision by the district court means nothing if purely legal i”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“authority and the responsibility to make an informed, final determination rests with the judge.... The delegation of duties to the magistrate does not violate Article III if the ultimate decision is made by the district court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hunt v. Pliler · Hunt v. Pliler
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.