Legal Opinion
Roell v. Withrow
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided April 29, 2003No. 02-69PublishedCited by 296 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Souter
The Federal Magistrate Act of 1979 (Federal Magistrate Act or Act) expanded the power of magistrate judges by authorizing them to conduct “any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case,” as long as they are “specially designated ... by the district court” and are acting “[u]pon the consent of the parties.” 28 U. S. C. § 636(c)(1). The question is whether consent can be inferred from a party’s conduct during litigation, and we hold that it can be.
I
Respondent Jon Michael Withrow is a Texas state prisoner who brought an action under Rev.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. RaddatzSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. SchorSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. WillSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by296 opinions
- Wilhelm v. RotmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Coleman v. Labor & Industry Review CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2017
- Cleta Heft v. Cody Moore, Carl Carpenter, Ed Root, Jeff McClain and Ric HughesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2003
- Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. SharifSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Dawson v. MarshallCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
291 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.