Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc., a Corporation, Plaintiff- Cross-Appellee v. Instromedix, Inc., a Corporation, Cross-Appellant
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge:
We consider this case en banc to address an issue important to the administration of justice in the federal courts. The question is the constitutionality of the section of the Federal Magistrate Act of 1979 which allows magistrates to conduct civil trials with *540the consent of all parties. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (Supp. V 1981).
Pacemaker, Inc., brought this suit alleging patent infringement against Instromedix, Inc. Instromedix counterclaimed for a declaration of the patent’s invalidity. The parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and local rules of the District of Oregon,…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Mathews v. WeberSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by188 opinions
- Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. SharifSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- McCarthy v. AzureCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
- K.M.C. Co., Inc. v. Irving Trust CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1985
- Robert Lee Norris v. James Schotten, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
- Pablo Bastidas v. Kevin ChappellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
183 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.