United States v. Raddatz
- Decided
- August 22, 1980
- Docket
- 79-8
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,232 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “delegation” to a magistrate “does not violate Art. Ill so long as the ultimate decision is made by the district court” (emphasis added) — United States v. Cyrus Jonathan George (1992)
- holding that “so long as the ultimate decision is made by the district court,” delegation to a magistrate judge does not violate Article III — United States v. Allen (2002)
- holding that even where a district judge must make a de novo determination, “[Section 636(b)(1 — Echevarria v. Apfel (1999)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari, 444 U. S. 824, to resolve the constitutionality of a provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U. S. C. § 636 (b)(1)(B), which permits a district court to refer to a magistrate a motion to suppress evidence and authorizes the district court to determine and decide such motion based on the record developed before a magistrate, including the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations.
I
Statutes cited
- 28 U.S.C. § 636
- 18 U.S.C. § 922
- 18 U.S.C. § 3501
- 5 U.S.C. § 557
- 29 U.S.C. § 160
- 33 U.S.C. § 921
- 11 U.S.C. § 67
- 28 U.S.C. § 1920
Cite this
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.