UNITED STATES

v.

LOUISIANA ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• In re United States Dep't OF Def., 848 F.2d 232 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
  …Re: Armco, Inc., 770 F. 2d 103, 105 (8th Cir.1985)); see also In Re: United States, 816 F. 2d 1083, 1089 (6th Cir.1987) (reference of pretrial discovery "may be appropriate” so long as dispositive motions are not referred); cf. California v. Texas, 459 U.S. 963, 103 S.Ct. 288, 74 L.Ed.2d 274 (1982) (ordering appointment of special master to supervise pleadings and subsequent proceedings to issue subpoenas, and to "take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem necessary to call for”). . D…
• In re Armco, Inc., 770 F.2d 103 (8th Cir. 1985)
  …law. Although LaBuy and Liptak limit the authority of the master, La-Buy was a case in which a district court had abused its authority to appoint masters. Other cases help ascertain the breadth of his powers within those limits. California v. Texas, 459 U.S. 963,103 S.Ct. 288, 74 L.Ed.2d 274 (1982) (mem.); Costello v. Wainwright, 387 F.Supp. 324, 327 (M.D.Fla.1973); Biechele v. Norfolk & Western Ry., 309 F.Supp. 354, 359 (N.D.Ohio 1969). We believe that the district court erred in granting the master auth…