Grassia v. Scully’s Empirical Analysis
892 F.2d 16 · 1989
Citation profile
22 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably United States v. Rosa (1993), United States v. Male Juvenile (1997)
22 federal appellate ·
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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Hill v. Lockhart · United States v. Raddatz · Jones v. Howard · Mathews v. Weber
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[a] judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The issue is not before us, but we assume it is unlikely that a district judge would reject a magistrate [judgej’s proposed findings on credibility when those findings are dispositive and substitute the judge’s own appraisal; to do so without seeing and hearing the witness or witnesses whose credibility is in question could well give rise to serious questions which we do not reach.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the statutory language of section 636(b)(1) affords the district court broad latitude in considering the magistrate’s recommendation. Moreover, the phrase de novo determination in section 636(b)(1), as opposed to de novo hearing, was selected by Congress “to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 , 100 S.Ct. 2406, 2412 , 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980). Section 636 does not require the district court “to rehear the contested testimony in order to carry out the required ‘determination.’ ” Id. at 674 , 100 S.Ct. at 2411 .”
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.