Case Citator › Williams v. McNeil

Williams v. McNeil

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Eleventh Circuit
Citation
557 F.3d 1287
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
75 of 75
Citing cases (total)
75
Treatment dates
2017
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Williams v. McNeil has one confirmed declined-to-follow treatment, listed below. All 75 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Fourth Circuit kept its rule requiring district judges to consider new arguments in objections and found the contrary approach represented by Williams unpersuasive. The other citing opinions applied Williams, described the circuit split without choosing against it, or did not cite this decision.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

75 later cases cite Williams v. McNeil; 75 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Williams v. McNeil?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • The Fourth Circuit retained its contrary rule and rejected the approach represented by Williams as unpersuasive in its jurisdiction.

    Samples v. Ballard · Fourth Circuit · filed

    See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291–92 (11th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases from the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that reject our approach in George and ultimately aligning with those other courts). The other circuits generally believe that our requirement that “de novo” must include every single argument goes too far, and that a district judge may consider new arguments, but by no means is required to do so in order for the review to count as de novo. See, e.g., Freeman v. Cty. of Bexar, 142 F.3d 848, 852 (5th Cir. 1998). Given that our approach is distinct from that of other circuits, the out-of-circuit case law on which the district court relied, and on which the government relied in arguing this case, is both unpersuasive and unhelpful on this issue.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Williams v. McNeil and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace