Wolff v. Wolff’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Hillman (1986), Adams v. Heckler (1986)
24 federal appellate · 1 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. § 636
Relies on Navarro Savings Assn. v. Lee · Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co. · Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. Prudence Securities Advisory Group · Penland v. Warren County Jail · Nunn v. Feltinton
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may be reviewed by the appropriate United States court of appeals upon petition for leave to appeal by a party stating specific objections to the judgment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, if a magistrate decides a question of law in a manner inconsistent with the decisions of this court but the district court corrects the error on the appeal as of right, then a further appeal to this court need not be granted. Second, since petitions for leave to appeal are submitted to a motions panel of this court rather than to a hearing panel, the motions panel need not decide that the magistrate and the district court actually failed to follow the decisions of this court in order to grant leave to appeal. Instead, the motions panel need only determine that there is a substantial likelihood that the magistrate and the district court violated circuit precedent. The panel assigned to hear the case would then decide whether the magistrate and the district court actually failed to follow circuit precedent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Permission for leave to appeal is a matter of sound judicial discretion and will be granted only if the appeal presents substantial issues for review by this court. The court will exercise its discretion in granting or denying permission to appeal in light of the following guidelines: (1) Permission to appeal may be denied if (i) the sole issue on appeal is whether the magistrate’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous, and the district court sitting as an appellate court has upheld the magistrate’s findings; or (ii) the dispositive issue or set of issues has been authoritatively decided recently, and the district court has found the magistrate’s judgment to be consistent with the authoritative decisions; or (iii) the issues raised on appeal are otherwise insubstantial. (2) Permission to appeal will be granted if (i) the magistrate has decided a substantial question of law not previously determined by this court or has decided it in a way inconsistent with applicable decisions of this court.”
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.