6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 347 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Hubbard v. Kelley.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hubbard v. Kelley Anchor | green | “in this circuit, it is established law that a district judge will not consider new arguments raised in objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation that could have been raised before the magistrate but were not.” | 124 |
| 2 | Paddington Partners v. Jean-Louis Bouchard, Herbert A. Denton, Econocom Finance Nv Econocom International N v. Jeffries & Company, Inc. | green | “in objecting to a magistrate's report before the district court, a party has no right to present further testimony when it offers no justification for not offering the testimony at the hearing before the magistrate.” | 78 |
| 3 | Marc Andrew Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc. | green | “merely referring the court to previously filed papers or arguments does not constitute an adequate objection under either fed. r. civ. p. 72(b) or local civil rule 72.3(a)(3).” | 67 |
| 4 | Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. International Brotherhood Of Teamsters | green | “we conclude that to construe 636(b)(1) to require the district court to conduct a second hearing whenever either party objected to the magistrate's credibility findings would largely frustrate the plain objective of congress to alleviate the increasing congestion of litigation …” | 63 |
| 5 | Hubbard v. Kelley | green | “it is established law that a district judge will not consider new arguments raised in objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation that could have been raised before the magistrate but were not.” | 10 |
| 6 | Hubbard v. Kelley | green | “new arguments raised in objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation that could have been raised before the magistrate but were not.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.