Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 53 (Masters)

11 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Waymire
  202 F.2d 550· 10th Cir.· 1953-02-28 ·cited 52×
• Gary W. v. State OF La.
  601 F.2d 240· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-24 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court did not err in appointing a Special Master to oversee implementation of a prior order protecting children's rights, nor in directing the state to pay the master's fees and expenses.
• Brown v. Wesley's Quaker Maid, Inc.
  771 F.2d 952· 6th Cir.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 20×
  A district judge's de novo review of a magistrate's findings in a Title VII case referred under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5) is improper; the 'clearly erroneous' standard applies, requiring deference to the magistrate's factual findings.
• Nat'l Org. FOR THE Reform OF Marijuana Laws v. Mullen
  828 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the order appointing a special master is not appealable as a modification of an injunction, but can be reviewed via writ of mandamus. The court also held that the federal entities participating in CAMP can be required to pay the master's fees.
• Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Dep't OF Revenue OF The State OF Wash.
  934 F.2d 1064· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by referring the entire case to a special master, as no exceptional circumstances justified such a broad delegation of judicial authority.
• Flowers v. Crouch-Walker Corp.
  507 F.2d 1378· 7th Cir.· 1974-12-18 ·cited 12×
  A local rule allowing a magistrate to be assigned Title VII cases as a master is invalid because it conflicts with statutory provisions requiring judges to hear and determine such cases.
• Young v. Pierce
  822 F.2d 1368· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 6×
  The court vacated the district court's orders for an interim injunction and appointment of a special master, remanding for reconsideration in light of a partial settlement between the parties.
• In re Stewart v. Stewart
  741 F.2d 127· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's Interim Rule, referring bankruptcy cases to bankruptcy judges, was a valid exercise of authority and not inconsistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, given the exceptional circumstances following Northern Pipeline.
• Burgess v. The Honorable Ashton H. Williams
  302 F.2d 91· 4th Cir.· 1962-05-01 ·cited 6×
  A writ of mandamus should not issue to vacate an order referring a complex bankruptcy preference suit to a master, as it does not constitute an abuse of discretion and preserves the right to a jury trial.
• Brock v. George and Ann ING
  827 F.2d 1426· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-02
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering the Secretary of Labor to pay a portion of the Special Master's fees, and that such fees should be borne by the employers who violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
• Thompson v. Jiro J. Enomoto
  815 F.2d 1323· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-30
  The court held that an order appointing a special master to monitor compliance with a consent decree is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it does not have the practical effect of granting or denying an injunction and the appellant failed to show irre