Carol Los Mansmann

How Judge Mansmann rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Position
Circuit judge
Status
Deceased
Served
1985–2002
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
April 4, 1985
Education
Duquesne University, B.A., 1964; Duquesne University School of Law, J.D., 1967
Signed orders read
25

About Judge Mansmann

Carol Los Mansmann was a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Mansmann received a commission on April 4, 1985. Judge Mansmann previously served on the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, commissioned there on March 19, 1982. Judge Mansmann served until death on March 9, 2002.

How Judge Mansmann decides

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

What persuades

In Sun Alliance Insurance v. Soto, she found both elements of the policy’s business-pursuits exclusion satisfied and held that coverage was barred.

“On these facts we find that both prongs of the business pursuits exclusion test are met.”

In Budinsky v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, she held that the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act did not preempt Pennsylvania's permit requirement for a mine affecting fewer than two acres because the Act allowed stricter state environmental controls.

“We reiterate that nothing in the SMCRA precludes a state from exceeding the Act's land use and environmental directives with more stringent standards.”

Procedural preferences

Treats an unsupported Rule 54(b) certification as insufficient to create appellate jurisdiction.

“We conclude that we do not have jurisdiction here in light of the unsupported Rule 54(b) order.”

Requires an agency adjudicator to evaluate a medical report on its merits rather than reject it solely as boilerplate.

“Because the ALJ rejected Dr. Latimer’s report solely on the basis that he perceived it to be a boilerplate report, however, we cannot say that the ALJ properly weighed this report.”

Cautions

A request for agency reconsideration does not by itself restart a statutory filing period.

“We hold that the district court did not err in concluding that the mere filing of a request for reconsideration does not toll the ninety day period for filing an ADEA civil action”

In the Aronsohns’ tax refund appeal, she held that their Form 870-AD settlement equitably barred the refund suit.

“the Aronsohns were equitably estopped from filing their refund suit.”

Signed rulings

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

Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Puerto Rico v. Soto
· 1988-01-19
Appeal (insurer-appellant) Granted

“Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we will reverse the judgment of the district court.”

Budinsky v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
· 1987-06-23
Appeal (mine-operator-appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.”

Commonwealth Insurance Co. v. Underwriters, Inc.
· 1988-05-16
Appeal (insurer-appellant) Moot / procedural

“Therefore we will dismiss the appeal.”

202 Marketplace v. Evans Products Co.
· 1987-08-14
Appeal (tenant-and-landlord-cross-appellants) Granted in part

“Therefore we will affirm summary judgment for Evans Products on Count I and we will reverse the declaratory judgment for 202 Marketplace on Count II.”

Brobst v. Columbus Services International
· 1987-08-17
Appeal (employees-appellants) Denied

“We will, therefore, affirm the district court's judgment.”

NLRB v. Louton, Inc.
· 1987-07-01
Petition for enforcement (National Labor Relations Board) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, we will enforce the Board’s supplemental order.”

Wilmington Firefighters Local 1590 v. City of Wilmington
· 1987-08-20
Appeal (city-appellant) Moot / procedural

“Therefore we will vacate the district court's orders of March 31, 1986 and May 9, 1986 and remand with directions to dismiss the complaint.”

Donivan v. Dallastown Borough
· 1987-12-15
Appeal (borough-officials-appellants) Denied

“Accordingly, we will affirm the district court's denial of summary judgment based upon the lack of legislative immunity of the council members.”

Albert v. Abramson's Enterprises, Inc.
· 1986-05-23
Appeal (Government of the Virgin Islands-appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court entered on April 11,1985.”

United States v. Renfroe
· 1987-08-07
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Granted in part

“We will therefore remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. V. After careful consideration we find.Mr. Renfroe's other contentions to be without merit. We will therefore affirm the judgment of the district court upon those issues.”

Logan v. Moyer
· 1990-03-09
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Granted

“We will remand this matter to the district court for completion of the record as appropriate.”

Cemar, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A.
· 1990-02-27
Appeal (automobile-dealer-appellant) Moot / procedural

“Since we do not have jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal, vacate the order of the district court entered as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

A historical record

Judge Mansmann no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.