Orsini v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis
913 F.2d 474 · 1990
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably United States v. Hoelscher (1990), Norris v. Schotten (1998)
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 18 U.S.C. § 3401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Bagley · Brady v. United States · Singleton v. Wulff · Vandygriff v. Phillips
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he plain language of section 636(c) . . . indicates that magistrates, upon consent of the parties and reference by the district court, have jurisdiction to order entry of judgment in a habeas case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(c) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary— (1) Upon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate ... may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order, the entry of judgment in the case, when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court or courts he serves.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Norris v. Schotten“[P]arties cannot consent to subject matter jurisdiction [] because extending consent to its `inevitable conclusion' will eliminate civil jurisdiction from the federal courts, a result that is likely unconstitutional.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.