Stauble v. Warrob, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
977 F.2d 690 · 1992
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Blackie v. Maine (1996), United States v. Gifford (1994)
29 federal appellate · 8 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
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Crowell v. Benson · Allied Chemical Corporation v. Daiflon Inc · La Buy v. Howes Leather Co. · Holmes v. United States
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Constitution prohibits ... the non-consensual reference of a fundamental issue of liability to an adjudicator who does not possess the attributes that Article III demands. Because Rule 53 cannot retreat from what Article III requires, a master cannot supplant the district judge. Determining bottom-line legal questions is the responsibility of the court itself. Thus, Article III bars a district court, “of its own motion or upon the request of one party,” from “abdicating] its duty to determine by its own judgment the controversy presented and devolve that duty upon any of its officers.” To be sure, Article III does not require that a district judge find every fact and determine ever issue of law in a case.... [For example], a master who is appointed to oversee pre-trial discovery will often investigate the parties’ compliance with the relevant Federal Rules as part of his ... fact-finding. As long as the district court discerns sufficient supporting evidence and is satisfied that the master applied the correct legal standards, it may relay on the master’s report as part of its determination of liability. Yet, there is an important distinction between such collateral issues, on the one hand, and fundamental determinations of liability, on the other.... The former comprise table setting and table clearing, while the latter comprise the meal itself. As the [Supreme] Court has observed, where a district court does not hear and determine the main course, ie., the meat-and-pot”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“litigants may waive their personal right to have an Article III judge preside over a civil trial”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“parties to a civil case may consent to the appointment of a master under any circumstances.”
2 later decisions 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.