Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:


Roell v. Withrow

Docket No.: 02-69
Certiorari Granted: Nov 4 2002
Argued: February 26, 2003
Decided: April 29, 2003


28 U.S.C. 636, Judicial Power, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, Article I, Civil Procedure, Due Process, EPA, Eighth Amendment, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, First Amendment, abuse of discretion, habeas, habeas corpus, harmless error, jury selection, res judicata, stare decisis

PartyNames: Petitioners v. Jon Michael Withrow
Petitioner: Petitioners
Respondent: Jon Michael Withrow

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Citation: CA 5, 288 F.3d 199. QUESTION PRESENTED When a district court, upon the plaintiffs written consent, refers a case to amagistrate judge for trial, see 28 U.S.C. ยง636(c), and all parties, the magistrate judge, and the jury proceed in a manner consistent with that referral, must a courtof appeals sua sponte vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction because defendants did not expressly consent, or can defendants cure that alleged defect by confirming, in a post-judgment filing with the district court, their consent to trial before the magistrate judge?
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court Docket

Jon Michael Withrow
538 U.S. 580 (2003)

Can consent, under the Federal Magistrate Act of 1979, be inferred from a party's conduct during litigation?

Roell v. Withrow

February 26, 2003

Holding: reversed and remanded
Decision: Decision: 5 votes for Roell, 4 vote(s) against

Roell v. Withrow
Case Documents

1Opinion in Roell v. Withrow
2Opinion in Roell v. Withrow
Additional documents for this case are pending review.