Anthony J. Scirica

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit circuit Appointed by Ronald Reagan (Republican) 28 signed orders read

Signed rulings

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

Government of the Virgin Islands v. D.W., a Minor
· 1993-08-31
Appeal (appellant (juvenile D.W.)) Granted

“Ruling the fine was a "foreseeable" construction of the Virgin Islands juvenile statute, 5 V.I.C. §§ 2501-54 (1983), the Appellate Division affirmed the Territorial Court's judgment. We will reverse.”

287 Corporate Center Associates v. Township of Bridgewater
· 1996-11-27
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff 287 Corporate Center Associates)) Denied

“In this inverse condemnation action, 287 Corporate Center Associates ("Associates") sued the Township of Bridgewater ("Township") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution for allegedly taking its property without just compensation. The district court dismissed the [case] as time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. Associates has appealed. We will affirm.”

United States v. Amster
· 1999-10-07
Appeal (appellant (defendant Scott Amster)) Denied

“Section 4A1.2(f) is unequivocal. "A diversionary disposition resulting from ... a plea of nolo contendere in a judicial proceeding is counted...." ... Amster cannot avoid the effect of his prior pleas on his present sentence. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of sentence.”

Jones v. Morton
· 1999-10-25
Appeal (appellant (habeas petitioner Ronald Jones)) Denied

“We agree with the District Court that the petition was time-barred, and accordingly, we will affirm.”

Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States
· 2001-07-18
Appeal (appellant (intervenor newspaper, the Newark Star-Ledger)) Denied

“The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in temporarily sealing the initial filings and hearings concerning a contempt motion filed under Fed. R.Crim.P. 6(e)(2) pending its determination whether secret grand jury material would be disclosed. ... We will affirm.”

Balderston v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.
· 2002-04-03
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Dr. Richard Balderston)) Denied

“This is an appeal in a diversity case from an order dismissing a physician's deceptive marketing claim under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (CPL) for lack of standing. We will affirm.”

In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation
· 2002-12-19
Appeal (appellants (plaintiffs / unnamed class members)) Granted in part

“We will affirm the District Court's issuance of the injunction, but reverse with respect to the propriety of the removal.”

Winer Family Trust v. Queen
· 2007-09-24
Appeal (appellants (plaintiffs / former shareholders)) Denied

“The District Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to meet the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 et seq ("PSLRA"). While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court set forth the pleading standard for the PSLRA. ... We will affirm.”

Cheruku v. Attorney General of the United States
· 2011-09-22
Petition for review (petitioner (Reddy Cheruku)) Denied

“Reddy Cheruku filed a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming denial of her application to adjust her status to that of a lawful permanent resident under the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act ... because she was found inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). We will deny the petition for review.”

Centrix HR, LLC v. On-Site Staff Management, Inc.
· 2011-06-23
Appeal (appellant (Centrix HR, LLC)) Denied

“On appeal, HR contends the court ignored our mandate. We will affirm.”

Mendez v. Puerto Rican International Companies, Inc.
· 2011-07-21
Appeal (appellants (defendants Plant Performance Services / Fluor Corporation)) Denied

“Appellants Plant Performance Services, LLC ("P2S") and Fluor Corporation seek reversal of an order denying their request for a stay pending arbitration. We will affirm.”

Tinicum Township v. United States Department of Transportation
11-1472 · 2012-07-06
Petition for review (petitioners (Tinicum Township and Delaware County)) Denied

“Because we find the Federal Aviation Administration's decision was not "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), we will deny the petition for review.”

Put Judge Scirica's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Scirica actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Scirica's own signed orders and cites them.