Bruce Marshall Selya

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit circuit Retired 2025 · served 1986–2025 Appointed by Ronald Reagan (Republican) 26 signed orders read

Judge Selya no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

PowerShare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc.
09-1625 · 2010-03-01
Appeal (appellant (defendant Syntel, Inc.)) Granted

“For the reasons elucidated above, we reverse the decision appealed from and remand the case to the district court for the entry of an order staying the litigation pending the resolution of the parallel arbitration proceeding, dissolving the existing stay of arbitration, and making such other provisions consistent with this opinion, as the district court may deem meet. Reversed and remanded.”

Lopez-Munoz v. Triple-S Salud, Inc.
13-1417 · 2014-05-09
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Raquel Lopez-Munoz)) Granted

“We reverse both the district court's judgment of dismissal and its order denying remand, and we remand the matter to the district court with instructions to remand the case to the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.”

Ruiz-Sanchez v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
12-1900 · 2013-05-31
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Manuel Ruiz-Sanchez)) Granted

“For the reasons elucidated above, we vacate the order of dismissal as to the Law 80 claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Vacated and remanded.”

Berliner v. Pappalardo (In re Puffer)
11-1831 · 2012-03-22
Appeal (appellant (movant L. Jed Berliner)) Granted

“We reverse the order appealed from and remand to the district court with instructions to vacate the bankruptcy court's fee order and remand to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Velazquez Linares v. United States
08-1548 · 2008-11-10
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Maria Velazquez Linares)) Granted

“The order for dismissal and for sanctions is reversed. The case is reinstated.”

United States v. Ortiz
12-2190 · 2014-01-27
Appeal (appellant (defendant Christian Ortiz)) Granted

“Exercising that jurisdiction, we conclude that the district court committed plain error in its imposition of the sentence. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.”

United States v. Flores-Nater
21-1856 · 2023-03-20
Appeal (appellant (defendant Jadnel Flores-Nater)) Granted

“For the reasons elucidated above, we conclude that the district court has not articulated a plausible sentencing rationale. Consequently, we sustain the defendant's claim of error, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing.”

Atieh v. Riordan
12-2314 · 2013-06-24
Appeal (appellants (plaintiffs Raniah and Fuad Atieh)) Granted

“For the reasons elucidated above, we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for additional proceedings consistent with the APA. We do not reach the merits of this appeal and, therefore, take no view as to the appropriate outcome of those additional proceedings. Vacated and remanded.”

Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. ADM Associates, LLC
12-2208 · 2015-07-16
Appeal (appellant (Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio)) Denied

“The time set for a showing of cause having expired and no cause having been shown, we now affirm the judgment below substantially on the basis of the answers to the certified questions furnished by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Affirmed.”

United States v. Gerrish
23-1317 · 2024-03-15
Appeal (appellant (defendant Derek Gerrish)) Denied

“Because we conclude the bail conditions that plainly permitted the challenged search were constitutional, we need not reach the investigatory detention rationale. ... For the reasons elucidated above, the judgment of the district court is Affirmed.”

United States v. Mulero-Vargas
19-1941 · 2022-02-02
Appeal (appellant (defendant Jose Mulero-Vargas)) Denied

“For the reasons elucidated above, the challenged sentence is Affirmed.”

Nahant Preservation Trust, Inc. v. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Co.
22-1967 · 2023-08-16
Appeal (appellants (plaintiffs Nahant Preservation Trust, Inc. et al.)) Denied

“For substantially the reasons expressed in the district court's opinion and embellished here, we accept USLI's plausible reading of the Exclusion Amendment, reject Nahant's implausible reading, and affirm the judgment below. Affirmed.”

A historical record

Judge Selya no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.