Amalya L. Kearse

How Judge Kearse rules, drawn from 60 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Commissioned
1979-06-21
Education
Wellesley College (B.A., 1959); University of Michigan Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1962)
Signed orders read
60

How Judge Kearse decides

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

What persuades

A textual challenge succeeded where the governing rule prohibited possession, neighboring provisions separately addressed use, and the agency attempted to punish use as possession.

“The drafters’ recognition that possession does not encompass use is also displayed within a number of individual PAC sections.”

A claimed property interest was supported by the governing lease and incorporated rules, which gave a defined group shared use rights that excluded the public.

“The term ‘property,’ however, is not defined in the Code.”

A specific factual allegation could survive screening even when the broader pro se pleading was largely implausible; disbelief alone did not justify dismissal.

“because some important alleged aspect of the claim might not be credited.”

After a disability-access bench trial, Kearse required plaintiffs to prove that their proposed modifications would be effective while assigning them only an initial facial burden on reasonableness; the defendant retained the ultimate burden to establish that an accommodation was unreasonable.

“In sum, plaintiffs who propose modifications to accommodate their disabilities have the initial burden and the burden of persuasion as to whether their proposed modifications would be effective; as to the multi-faceted issue of reasonableness, they have only the ‘initial’ burden of identifying a ‘plausible’ modification, i.e., a modification ‘the costs of which, facially, do not clearly exceed its benefits.’”

Procedural preferences

An order granting specific performance was not appealable as an injunction because it failed to state the required acts and a performance deadline within the order itself.

“First, Petrello I does not instruct White to perform specific acts; it does not describe the required conduct in any detail, much less ‘in reasonable detail’ as required by Rule 65(d)(1).”

An unpreserved error did not warrant relief without record-based proof of a reasonable probability that the defendant would have chosen differently.

“In assessing this plain-error factor, we review the record as a whole.”

Signed rulings

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

Eiberger v. Sony Corp. of America
· 1980-05-02
Appeal (appellant (defendant Sony Corporation of America)) Granted in part

“We affirm the district court's ruling on liability on the grounds stated above, reverse on the question of damages, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. No costs.”

United States v. Ventura
· 1983-12-13
Appeal (appellant (defendant Armand Ventura)) Denied

“The judgment of conviction is affirmed.”

Green v. McCall
· 1987-06-24
Appeal (appellant (defendants United States Parole Commission and its members)) Denied

“The judgment of the district court enjoining the Commission to follow the specified procedures for parole grantees is in all respects affirmed.”

United States v. Wolfson
· 1995-05-10
Appeal (appellant (defendant Louis E. Wolfson)) Denied

“There being no right of access to the documents on the part of Wolfson or the public, the order of the district court is affirmed.”

Leslie v. Artuz
· 2000-10-17
Appeal (appellant (petitioner Anthony Leslie, state prisoner)) Denied

“We have considered all of Leslie's arguments on this appeal and have found in them no basis for reversal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

Wallace v. Nash
· 2002-11-14
Appeal (appellant (petitioner Glenn Wallace, federal prisoner)) Granted

“The judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

Khan v. Ashcroft
· 2003-12-09
Appeal (appellant (petitioner Fazila Khan)) Denied

“We have considered all of Khan's contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

United States v. Riley
· 2006-06-21
Appeal (appellant (defendant Adrian Riley)) Denied

“We have considered all of Riley's arguments on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

Petrello v. White
· 2008-07-10
Appeal (appellant (defendants John C. White and White Investment L.P.)) Moot / procedural

“We conclude that the orders challenged by defendants are not appealable orders for the reasons discussed above, and on that basis we grant plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeals.”

Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v. Anza
· 2011-06-28
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Ideal Steel Supply Corporation)) Granted

“Vacated and remanded.”

Alphonso v. Commissioner
· 2013-02-06
Appeal (appellant (petitioner Christina A. Alphonso)) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, we vacate the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner and remand for further proceedings.”

United States v. Murdock
· 2013-11-08
Appeal (appellant (defendant Seth Murdock, pro se)) Granted

“We vacate the August Order of the district court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion, which should be expedited in light of Murdock's scheduled release from prison on November 15, 2013.”

Draft for Judge Kearse with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kearse, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Kearse's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace