Collins J. Seitz

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

Judge Seitz 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 1998
Served
1966–1998
Appointed by
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic)
Commissioned
1966-06-09
Education
University of Delaware (A.B., 1937); University of Virginia School of Law (LL.B., 1940)
Signed orders read
25

How Judge Seitz decides

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

What persuades

In Jones, Seitz reopened discovery before summary judgment because the plaintiff had diligently obtained counsel and needed discovery to identify the employer’s promotion practices.

“We believe that Jones is entitled to a reasonable period in which to conduct discovery with the assistance of counsel.”

In Musso, he rejected a proposed substitute for ERISA’s surety bond because setting aside the plan’s own assets would not replenish the plan after a fiduciary loss.

“It is clear that such a scheme does not protect the assets of the Fund — in the event of a breach of fiduciary duty by one of the Fund’s trustees, the Fund’s assets would be diminished by the amount of the damage caused by the breach.”

In Penntech Papers, he upheld the arbitrator’s use of a comparable restructuring because the collective-bargaining agreement did not prescribe a different comparison method.

“We find that consideration of a $.25 increase granted in a similar restructuring is a permissible method of determining that the wage rate for the Size and Clay Mixer position was out of line.”

Procedural preferences

In Bevill, he required the party asserting a joint-defense privilege to produce evidence supporting it; invoking another privilege and remaining silent did not carry that burden.

“A party cannot invoke a privilege by remaining silent.”

In Houck, he declined to consider evidentiary objections that had not been presented to the trial court.

“As a general rule, we do not consider such objections for the first time on appeal.”

Cautions

In Hynson, he applied qualified immunity where the plaintiff identified no clearly established duty requiring a warden to immediately apprehend a weekend inmate who failed to report.

“Plaintiff concedes that she can cite no authority that imposes a duty to apprehend on the warden.”

Signed rulings

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

Gwendolyn Howze v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
· 1984-12-28
Appeal (appellant (Gwendolyn Howze)) Granted

“The order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, will be vacated, and the case will be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Alex JONES, Appellant, v. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., Appellee
· 1984-12-28
Appeal (appellant (Alex Jones)) Granted

“The order of the district court granting J & L’s motion for summary judgment will be vacated, and the case will be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Pasquale G. Cuccaro A/K/A Charles P. Cuccaro v. Secretary of Labor of the United States of America
· 1985-08-15
Appeal (appellant (Pasquale G. Cuccaro)) Denied

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

Seymour Wexler and Daisy Wexler, Individually and on Behalf of Their Child, Douglas Wexler v. Westfield Board of Education
· 1986-03-18
Appeal (appellants (the Wexler family)) Denied

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

In re Bevill, Bresler & Schulman Asset Management Corp.
· 1986-11-13
Appeal (appellants (Bevill and Rooney)) Denied

“The order of the district court, therefore, will be affirmed.”

Thompson v. United States Department of Labor
· 1987-03-11
Appeal (appellant (James Thompson)) Granted in part

“Insofar as Thompson’s complaint asserts a claim under the APA based on DOL’s failure to conclude the proceedings on his complaint within a reasonable time, the summary judgment order will be reversed and the claim remanded to the district court for prompt resolution.”

Jds Realty Corporation, Formerly Known as West Indies Corporation v. Government of the Virgin Islands and Leroy A. Quinn, Director of Internal Revenue
· 1987-07-24
Appeal (appellant (Government of the Virgin Islands)) Denied

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

St. John's General Hospital of Allegheny-ADR Center v. National Labor Relations Board
· 1987-07-31
Petition for review (petitioner (St. John’s General Hospital)) Denied

“In light of the foregoing analysis, the center’s petition for review of the Board’s order will be denied, and the Board’s cross application for enforcement will be granted.”

Hynson v. City of Chester
· 1987-09-02
Appeal (appellants (the Prison Board and Warden Kenneth Matty)) Granted in part

“Accordingly, we will affirm the order of the district court with respect to the Prison Board, and reverse the order of the district court denying Warden Matty’s motion for summary judgment.”

Musso v. Baker
· 1987-12-02
Appeal (appellants (the Secretaries of Labor and the Treasury)) Granted

“In light of the foregoing discussion, we will reverse the order of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint.”

United States v. Anthony Frank Piccolo
· 1988-02-02
Appeal (appellant (Anthony Frank Piccolo)) Denied

“CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, the judgment of sentence will be affirmed.”

William Herrmann v. Edwin Meese, Iii, Attorney General, Robert Honsted, Warden
· 1988-06-17
Appeal (appellant (William Herrmann)) Denied

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

A historical record

Judge Seitz 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.