Legal Opinion
Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Instromedix, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Cross-Appellant
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 3, 1983No. 82-3152, 82-3182PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge:
This case concerns the constitutionality of section 636(c) of the Magistrates Act which allows magistrates, with consent of the parties to the litigation, to conduct civil trials and enter judgments. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (Supp. V 1981). Because this procedure offends article III of the Constitution, we reverse and remand for de novo review by the district court.
FACTS
Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc. charged Instromedix, Inc. with infringement of a patent. Instromedix denied infringement and alleged that the patent was invalid. The parties consented to have…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- 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
- United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- United States v. RaddatzSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Wimmer v. CookCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1985
- K.M.C. Co., Inc. v. Irving Trust CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1985
- Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc., a Corporation, Plaintiff- Cross-Appellee v. Instromedix, Inc., a Corporation, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Wimmer v. CookCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1985
- Edna Goldstein v. Robert E. Kelleher, United States of America, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1984
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.