Wolochen v. New York

How courts have described this case

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

• \Masters may not be placed in control of government defendants for the purpose of forcing them to comply with court orders.\
• “[The opposing party] argues that 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) limits costs assessable to the United 18 States to those listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. This is incorrect.”
• “In the instant case, . . . the master has not been given the power to control or administer [the entity subject to the injunction]’s efforts, only to observe them.”
• “In addition to invoking Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, . . . .”
• “[T]he district court’s reference to a master was proper under the All Writs Act, as well as under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, and was therefore not clearly erroneous as a matter of law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).