8 Cited authorities

Hicks v. Feiock
485 U.S. 624 (1988) Cited 1,106 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal courts "are not at liberty to depart" from state court decisions recognizing elements of an affirmative defense or "to apply a different rule however desirable it may believe it to be"
Buffington v. Baltimore County
913 F.2d 113 (4th Cir. 1990) Cited 597 times
Holding that a party had abandoned its qualified immunity defense in a § 1983 action by not raising the issue clearly in the motion for summary judgment
Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
28 U.S.C. § 636 Cited 504,232 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"
Rule 72 - Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Cited 168,170 times 20 Legal Analyses
Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order
Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 Cited 46,285 times 322 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness
Rule 404 - Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
Fed. R. Evid. 404 Cited 16,758 times 65 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that even uncharged similar acts can be probative of a defendant's intent and knowledge concerning charged offenses
Section 42 - Criminal Contempt
Fed. R. Crim. P. 42 Cited 276 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing courts with the power to initiate criminal contempt prosecutions
Section 363 - Court of Federal Claims, Court of International Trade, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
28 U.S.C. § 363 Cited 122 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing for reconsideration of a magistrate judge's ruling on a pretrial motion not designated in that subpart if it is shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law

Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. et al

8 Cited authorities

Holding that federal courts "are not at liberty to depart" from state court decisions recognizing elements of an affirmative defense or "to apply a different rule however desirable it may believe it to be"

Holding that a party had abandoned its qualified immunity defense in a § 1983 action by not raising the issue clearly in the motion for summary judgment

Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"

Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order

Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

Recognizing that even uncharged similar acts can be probative of a defendant's intent and knowledge concerning charged offenses

Providing courts with the power to initiate criminal contempt prosecutions

Providing for reconsideration of a magistrate judge's ruling on a pretrial motion not designated in that subpart if it is shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law