ROBERT & NINA PURYEAR, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
EDE'S LTD., ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, CHARLES EILERT AND EDITH EILERT, INDIVIDUALLY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) of the Magistrates Act is constitutional and does not violate Article III judicial powers.
This diversity case was referred to a magistrate for trial after all parties consented. The appellants challenged the constitutionality of this proced…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Consent To Magistrate Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:
After consent by all parties, this diversity case was referred to a magistrate for trial and the entry of final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Appellants, relying on Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, 712 F. 2d 1305 (9th Cir.1983), claim that magistrates in trying such cases exercise powers reserved under the Constitution to Article III judges.
Pacemaker, however, was vacated en banc, 725 F. 2d 537 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc). That court found § 636(c) of the Magistrates Act saved from any constitutional infirmity by its requirement that all parties consent to such transfer and by the power of the district court to vacate the reference to the magistrate on its own motion. § 636(c)(1), (6). Each circuit facing this question has reached a similar conclusion. Goldstein v. Kelleher, 728 F. 2d 32 (1st Cir.1984); Collins v. Foreman, 729 F. 2d 108 (2d Cir.1984); Wharton-Thomas v. United States, 721 F. 2d 922 (3d Cir.1983).
For essentially the reasons stated by our sister circuits, we find that § 636(c) of the Magistrates Act does not suffer the asserted constitutional infirmity. We publish only part II of this opinion because this breach of contract case otherwise presents no issues of precedential value.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Indira Gairola v. Commonwealth OF Va. Dep't OF Gen. Servs., 753 F.2d 1281 (4th Cir. 1985)
-
Archie v. Christian, 808 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1987)
-
Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb Inc. v. Clark OIL & Ref. Corp., 739 F.2d 1313 (8th Cir. 1984)
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic OF Am., Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537 (9th Cir. 1984)
- Goldstein v. Kelleher, 728 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1984)
- Wharton-Thomas v. United States, 721 F.2d 922 (3d Cir. 1983)
- Howard v. Collins, 729 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1984)
- Scott v. Clark, 712 F.2d 1305 (8th Cir. 1983)
- Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic OF Am., Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 712 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1983)