Carol Los Mansmann

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit circuit Deceased · served 1985–2002 Appointed by Ronald Reagan (Republican) 25 signed orders read

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

How Judge Mansmann decides

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

What persuades

Reads insurance exclusions by testing the facts against the policy's continuity and profit-motive requirements.

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

Permits states to impose environmental safeguards more stringent than the federal minimum when the statute leaves room for them.

“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”

Applies equitable estoppel when a taxpayer seeks a refund after the government relied on an agreed waiver.

“We hold that Form 870-AD does not mandate a grant of power of attorney, but may be properly executed by an agent acting pursuant to a general power of attorney.”

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 eourt 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. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.