Austin Leander Staley

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit circuit Deceased · served 1950–1978 Appointed by Harry S. Truman (Democratic) 25 signed orders read

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

How Judge Staley decides

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

What persuades

Finds likely trade-name confusion where the parties' automobile-related services share the same prospective customers.

“we think there is sufficient probability that confusion will result in the public’s mind.”

Treats affirmative conduct combined with a tax-evasion purpose as sufficient under the governing criminal tax provision.

“So long as there exists affirmative and positive conduct coupled with a tax-evasion motive, a Section 145(b) violation exists.”

Procedural preferences

Respects a reorganization court's discretion to continue into bankruptcy rather than dismiss and disperse related disputes.

“No adequate reason has been advanced by the appellants to support their contention that there should have been a dismissal and the consequent transfer of the contests to other tribunals, and so it cannot be said that there was an abuse of discretion by the district court.”

Remands when the trial court substitutes judgment notwithstanding the verdict but has already granted a new trial in the alternative.

“If the judgment were reversed, the case, on remand, would be governed by the trial judge’s award of a new trial.”

Cautions

Will not disturb a jury verdict where the testimony can be reconciled and the claimant did not carry the burden of proof.

“the jury could have reconciled Mora’s testimony with Davis’s and found that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the burden of proof.”

Treats departure from customary navigation as negligence when known winds made the chosen course increasingly dangerous.

“The conduct of the master of the tug Venus in proceeding south from a position off Point Lookout, under the circumstances present in this case, constituted negligence.”

Signed rulings

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

Levin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
· 1955-02-11
Appeal (taxpayers-appellants) Denied

“For the reasons stated, the decisions of the Tax Court will be affirmed.”

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Johnson
· 1955-02-21
Appeal (trademark-plaintiff-appellant) Granted

“The decree of the district court will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

Hertz v. Record Publishing Co. of Erie
· 1955-04-18
Appeal (corporation-appellant) Denied

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

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Flory Milling Co.
· 1955-05-26
Appeal (government-appellant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons the decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.”

In re Riddlesburg Mining Co.
· 1955-07-01
Appeal (reorganization-appellants) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons the district court’s orders, as modified concerning the allowance .of interest, will be affirmed.”

Hastings & Co. v. Smith
· 1955-07-12
Appeal (government-appellant) Granted

“In No. 11,471, the injunction against the Collector will be dissolved and the judgment reversed; in No. 11,472, the judgment entered will be reversed and the cause remanded with instructions that the government’s suit be reinstated.”

National Labor Relations Board v. Local 169
· 1955-12-09
Petition for enforcement (labor-board-petitioner) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Board will be enforced.”

In re United Corp.
· 1956-04-16
Appeal (security-holders-appellants) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the order of the District Court will be affirmed.”

Halprin v. Mora
· 1956-04-09
Appeal (estate-administratrix-appellant) Denied

“We see no reason to disturb the district court’s judgment, which will be affirmed.”

De Jur-Amsco Corp. v. Fogle
· 1956-04-26
Appeal (patent-litigation-appellants) Denied

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

New York Co. v. The Robin Doncaster
· 1956-05-17
Appeal (vessel-owner-appellants) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons the decrees appealed from in Nos. 11,606, 11,607 and 11,635 will be affirmed.”

United States v. Hoover
· 1956-05-29
Appeal (criminal-defendant-appellant) Denied

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

A historical record

Judge Staley 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.