La Buy v. Howes Leather Company

Supreme Court of the United States · 1957 · Civil Procedure

352 U.S. 249 (1957)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureMandamusMastersInterlocutory ReviewRule 53All Writs Act28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)Rule 53(b)

Facts

Two antitrust suits filed in federal district court in 1950 involved claims of monopoly, price fixing, and price discrimination, and both sought injunctive relief, treble damages, and an accounting. The district judge had already handled extensive pretrial proceedings and was familiar with the pleadings, discovery, and legal theories. When the cases were called for trial, he stated that his calendar was extremely congested and that the cases were lengthy, complicated, and complex, then sua sponte referred both cases to a master to take evidence and report findings of fact and conclusions of law on the entire case. All parties objected and moved to vacate the references, but the judge refused.

Issue

Whether a court of appeals has power under the All Writs Act to issue mandamus directing a district judge to vacate Rule 53(b) orders referring antitrust cases to a master for trial, and whether mandamus was properly used on these facts.

Rule

A court of appeals may issue mandamus in aid of its jurisdiction under the All Writs Act in exceptional circumstances. Under Rule 53(b), a reference to a master is the exception, not the rule, and in nonjury actions, save in matters of account, may be made only upon a showing that some exceptional condition requires it. Calendar congestion, complexity, and expected length of trial do not by themselves constitute such exceptional conditions for referring the basic issues of liability and relief to a master.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a bench-tried federal trade-regulation suit in Chicago, Judge Elena Morris has managed the case for four years, ruled on numerous discovery disputes, and denied summary judgment. When trial approaches, she states that her docket is overcrowded and that the case will likely take seven weeks, so she appoints a master to hear all evidence and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on liability, damages, and injunctive relief.

If the defendants seek mandamus in the court of appeals to vacate the reference, what is the strongest argument for granting the writ?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, a reference to a master in a nonjury case is the exception, not the rule, and requires some exceptional condition. Calendar congestion and trial length, even with complexity, do not justify referring the general issues of liability and relief. A court of appeals may use mandamus in exceptional circumstances to correct such a clear abuse amounting to abdication of the judicial function.