A. Leon Higginbotham Jr.

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

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

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Position
circuit
Status
Retired 1993
Served
1977–1993
Appointed by
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Commissioned
1977-10-11
Education
Antioch College, B.A., 1949; Yale Law School, LL.B., 1952
Signed orders read
29

How Judge Higginbotham decides

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

What persuades

ERISA requires exhaustion of the benefit claim, not every issue or legal theory later offered in court. Presenting the claim to the plan trustees gave them the required opportunity to resolve the dispute.

“Section 502(a) of ERISA does not require either issue or theory exhaustion; it requires only claim exhaustion.”

An arbitral award receives exceptionally deferential review when the arbitrator arguably construed or applied the contract. Even a serious error does not justify vacatur on that basis alone.

“As long as the arbitrator has arguably construed or applied the contract, the award must be enforced, regardless of the fact that a court is convinced that arbitrator has committed a serious error.”

Procedural preferences

When a defendant seeks substitute counsel or self-representation on the eve of trial, the court must examine both whether good cause warrants substitution and whether any waiver of counsel is knowing and informed.

“if on the eve of trial, a defendant seeks new counsel or, in the alternative, seeks to represent himself, the district court must engage in two lines of inquiry.”

Cautions

Relief from default requires facts supporting a meritorious defense, not artful but ambiguous conclusions. Without facts that could establish a complete defense at trial, reopening the judgment serves no purpose.

“Default judgments cannot be set aside simply because of a lawyer’s artistry in offering ambiguous conclusions.”

A mail-fraud prosecution must prove that a mailing actually occurred. Evidence of ordinary office practices or a high probability of mailing did not establish that essential element beyond speculation.

“[w]hen the government charges a defendant with mail fraud, it must at minimum clearly and explicitly prove that the mailing occurred.”

Signed rulings

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

Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Harris
· 1978-06-14
Petition for review (petitioner) Granted

“The Order of the Board will be vacated and this case will be remanded to the Board for the entry of an order consistent with this opinion.”

Smith v. Califano
· 1981-01-13
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff)) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, we will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for the entry of a summary judgment in favor of appellant.”

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Petersen
· 1982-07-20
Appeal (appellant (defendant)) Granted in part

“We will also vacate the judgments and sentences for first degree assault and remand Counts IV, V and VI to the district court to enter judgments of conviction for third degree assault and to re-sentence Petersen appropriately. On all other counts we will affirm.”

Vastoler v. American Can Company
· 1983-02-23
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff)) Granted

“We will reverse the judgment of the district court that granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment and remand these proceedings to the district court for trial.”

Hinkie v. United States
· 1983-08-18
Appeal (appellant (United States (defendant))) Granted

“Because the controlling precedent forecloses any other option, the order of the district court will be reversed and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Ash v. GAF Corporation
· 1984-02-03
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff)) Denied

“For the reasons stated herein, we will affirm the district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of GAF.”

United States v. $55,518.05 in U.S. Currency (Appeal of Gary Golden)
· 1984-02-21
Appeal (appellant (claimant (Golden))) Denied

“Therefore, we will affirm the order of the district court.”

United States v. Wilkes
· 1984-04-19
Appeal (appellant (defendant)) Denied

“We therefore will affirm the judgment and sentence below.”

Washington Urban League v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1984-09-04
Appeal (appellant (petitioner)) Granted in part

“we will grant WUL’s request for attorneys’ fees.”

Wolf v. National Shopmen Pension Fund
· 1984-10-24
Appeal (appellant (defendant (Pension Fund))) Denied

“we will affirm the order of the district court in favor of Dorothy G. Wolf against National Shopmen Pension Fund in the amount and with the directions contained in that order.”

Sims v. Flanagan (Appeal of Allen L. Feingold)
· 1985-02-27
Appeal (appellant (appellant (attorney/fee claimant))) Denied

“Accordingly, we will affirm the judgments of the district court.”

Koutsoubos v. Boeing Vertol
· 1985-02-27
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff)) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.”

A historical record

Judge Higginbotham 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.