Cavitt v. Nebraska

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate’s factual conclusions were . . . specific enough to trigger de novo review.”
• explaining that “the district court makes ‘a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made’”
• explaining that “the district court makes ‘a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made’” (citation omitted)
• contrasting de novo review with “clearly erroneous standard” of review, and recognizing de novo review was required because objections were filed
• contrasting de novo review with “clearly erroneous standard” of review, and recognizing de novo review was required because objections were filed
• contrasting de novo review with “clearly erroneous stan dard” of review, and recognizing de novo review was required because objections were filed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).