Patterson v. Omni Orthopaedics, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that deference is required where agency created regulation permitting it to adjudicate counterclaims and Congress both contemplated and later ratified such adjudications
• holding that act giving Commodities Futures Trading Commission power to entertain state law counterclaims does not violate Article III
• holding that one purpose of separation of powers doctrine is to safeguard litigant's right to have claim decided before judge \`free from potential domination by other branches of government'\ (citations omitted)
• concluding that “when . . . Article III limitations are at issue, notions of consent and waiver cannot be dispositive”
• holding that lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be cured by the consent of the parties
• concluding that “when ... Article III limitations are at issue, notions of consent and waiver cannot be dispositive”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).