United States v. Utah
Headline: Court appoints Charles Warren as Special Master to gather evidence, take testimony, issue subpoenas, and report findings while costs and fees may be charged to the parties.
Holding: The Court appointed Charles Warren as Special Master, granting him authority to take evidence, issue subpoenas, administer oaths, set hearing times, and report findings to the Court, with expenses and fees to be apportioned among the parties.
- Appoints a neutral factfinder to collect testimony and evidence.
- Allows the Master to subpoena witnesses and administer oaths.
- Costs for the Master and report printing may be split among parties.
Summary
Background
The United States, represented by Attorney General Mitchell, asked the Court to appoint a Special Master to take evidence and report to the Court. No one appeared on behalf of the defendant. The Court ordered Charles Warren of Washington, D.C., appointed as Special Master with the powers described in the order.
Reasoning
The Court granted the motion and gave the Special Master authority to take live testimony or depositions, to employ stenographic and clerical assistants, to set times and places for taking evidence, and to limit how long each side may present evidence. The Master may issue subpoenas to bring in witnesses and may administer oaths. The order allows depositions by party agreement, under the equity court practice rules, or under the cited Revised Statutes sections; depositions may first be returned to the Master. When the Master finishes his report of findings, conclusions, and recommendations, the Clerk will print it, the parties will get a reasonable time fixed by the Court to present exceptions (formal objections), and the Court will then consider and act on the report.
Real world impact
A neutral fact-finder will collect and organize evidence for the Court, speeding fact-gathering and shaping the eventual decree. The Special Master will control scheduling and witness attendance, and may compel testimony. The Master will be paid and may hire assistants; those expenses and printing costs will be charged among the parties as the Court later directs. If the appointment is not accepted or the office becomes vacant during a recess, the Chief Justice may name a replacement with the same effect.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?