Skip to main content
Ninth Circuit· 10/20/1982

Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc.

Citations

  • 690 F.2d 717
  • 30 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 97
  • 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24699
  • 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,108

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • \[T]he parties ask us to view their conduct throughout the proceedings below as constituting the necessary consent. This we decline to do.\
  • “[T]he parties ask us to view their conduct throughout the proceedings below as constituting the necessary consent. This we decline to do.”
  • scope of authority to which parties consent is relevant factor in determining whether magistrate judge's exercise of jurisdiction valid

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Alarcon, Anderson, Nelson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc.

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.