Peter Thorp Fay

How Judge Fay rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Position
circuit
Status
Retired 2021
Served
1976–2021
Appointed by
Gerald Ford (Republican)
Commissioned
1976-09-21
Education
Rollins College (B.A., 1951); University of Florida College of Law (J.D., 1956)
Signed orders read
29

How Judge Fay decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

He reads the family-leave statute to protect advance notice of leave that will become eligible when taken, preventing an employer from defeating the right by retaliating before eligibility arrives.

“Our decision today simply means that pre-eligible discussion of post-eligible FMLA leave is protected activity under the FMLA.”

For consumer-deception claims he applies an objective reasonable-person standard rather than requiring each purchaser to prove individual reliance on the challenged representation.

“a plaintiff need not prove reliance on the allegedly false statement to recover damages under FDUTPA, but rather a plaintiff must simply prove that an objective reasonable person would have been deceived.”

In persecution analysis he evaluates a course of mistreatment cumulatively, rather than isolating kidnapping, beatings, and threats into separate incidents.

“We have no difficulty in concluding that this kidnaping, coupled with the beatings before and during the kidnaping, and the threatening phone calls, cumulatively amount to persecution.”

He is skeptical of corroboration demands that require a claimant to obtain old records from the same government alleged to have carried out the persecution and imprisonment.

“We are also troubled by the notion of condemning the petitioner for failing to obtain some sort of documentation from the same government that persecuted and imprisoned him, concerning incidents that occurred approximately ten years ago.”

Procedural preferences

When an important and unsettled question of state law controls, he seeks an authoritative answer from the state supreme court before deciding the federal appeal.

“Because we were faced with an important question of Florida law where no binding precedent was present, we decided to seek the guidance of the Florida Supreme Court before reaching our decision.”

Signed rulings

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

United States v. Brenda J. Williams
390 F.3d 1319 · 2004-11-16
Appeal (appellant (government)) Granted

“After careful consideration, we hold that the district court erred in entering the judgment of acquittal and reverse and remand.”

Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
431 F.3d 765 · 2005-11-29
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”

United States v. Neshara Gionne Moore
443 F.3d 790 · 2006-03-22
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We therefore affirm.”

Javier Mauricio Martinez Ruiz v. U.S. Attorney General
479 F.3d 762 · 2007-02-20
Petition for review (petitioner) Granted in part

“we grant Ruiz’s request for reconsideration of his petition for withholding of removal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Niftaliev v. U.S. Attorney General
487 F.3d 834 · 2007-05-25
Petition for review (petitioner) Granted

“For the reasons set out below, we reverse.”

Gandara v. Bennett
528 F.3d 823 · 2008-05-22
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”

United States v. Tagg
572 F.3d 1320 · 2009-06-30
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Tagg’s conviction.”

United States v. Boffil-Rivera
607 F.3d 736 · 2010-05-27
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, we affirm.”

United States v. Wright
607 F.3d 708 · 2010-05-26
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, Wright has presented no reversible error and we affirm the decision of the district court.”

Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
595 F.3d 1269 · 2010-02-05
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We hold that judicial estoppel was appropriate and affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.”

Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc.
635 F.3d 1279 · 2011-03-25
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Consequently, we vacate the order certifying the class and remand for reconsideration by the district court.”

Kathryn Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc.
666 F.3d 1269 · 2012-01-10
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“We answer that question in the affirmative, and therefore reverse.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Circuit judges sit on appellate panels rather than carrying an assigned trial caseload. Judge Fay's 1970-1976 Southern District of Florida service is outside this appellate profile.

A historical record

Judge Fay 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.