Francis Lund Van Dusen

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit circuit Deceased · served 1967–1993 Appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic) 22 signed orders read

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

How Judge Dusen decides

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

What persuades

Applies statutory text despite sympathetic facts and leaves changes in the law to Congress.

“While we sympathize with Mr. Blasko, we must enforce the law as it is written.”

Accepts qualified expert valuation evidence when it clearly and convincingly overcomes a presumptive appraisal.

“An examination of the testimony of petitioner’s expert (N.T. 68-88) makes clear that he presented clear and convincing evidence of the $150,000. value of the property in September 1962.”

Procedural preferences

Requires explicit language before a contract will excuse a drafter from liability for its own negligence.

“the burden of proof falls on the party seeking such relief. This burden is even greater where, as here, such party drafted the agreement.”

Applies an existing federal rule rather than substituting state law when federal law already defines the governing standard.

“Because we are not acting in the absence of an existing federal rule, we are not at liberty to adopt state law as the measure of the federal rule.”

Cautions

Rejects a civil-rights conspiracy theory when the complaint identifies no alleged co-conspirator.

“The alleged cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 is not supported by the complaint, which does not state that defendant conspired with anyone.”

Restricts prosecutorial use of a co-defendant's redacted confession to corroborate evidence against other defendants.

“Absent unusual circumstances, the prosecutor should not be allowed, in his summation, to refer to the redacted confession for purposes of corroboration at all, where the evidence it corroborates is being used against the confessor’s co-defendants.”

Signed rulings

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

Winkler v. Pringle
· 1967-12-20
Appeal (civil-rights-plaintiff-appellant) Granted in part

“The orders of the District Court at Nos. 16757 and 16759 will be affirmed and the order at No. 16758 will be remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the foregoing opinion.”

A. C. Israel Commodity Co. v. American-West African Line, Inc.
· 1968-07-01
Appeal (stevedore-appellant) Denied

“the judgment appealed from in No. 17110, as well as that appealed in No. 17085, will be affirmed.”

United States ex rel. Deans v. Clifford
· 1970-01-05
Appeal (habeas-petitioner-appellant) Denied

“The order of the District Court will be affirmed.”

United States ex rel. Baldwin v. Yeager
· 1970-06-22
Appeal (habeas-petitioner-appellant) Denied

“The District Court order of April 29, 1969, will be affirmed.”

Fletcher v. Hook
· 1971-05-17
Appeal (civil-rights-plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“The above-mentioned orders of April 13 and May 6, 1970, will be affirmed.”

United States ex rel. Hartman v. Laird
· 1971-05-26
Appeal (habeas-petitioner-appellant) Denied

“In view of the record in this case, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.”

United States ex rel. Johns v. Pinto
· 1971-09-22
Appeal (habeas-petitioner-appellant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the district court order of May 15, 1970, will be affirmed.”

United States ex rel. Kachinski v. Cavell
· 1971-12-07
Appeal (habeas-petitioner-appellant) Denied

“The December 17, 1969, district court order will be affirmed.”

Bleier v. National Labor Relations Board
· 1972-03-24
Petition for review (employees-petitioners) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review of the Board’s order in this case will be denied.”

In re Petition for Naturalization of Blasko
· 1972-09-26
Appeal (naturalization-petitioner-appellant) Denied

“The district court order of May 4, 1971, will be affirmed.”

Gimbel Brothers, Inc. v. William H. Vanderherchen, Inc.
· 1972-10-20
Appeal (commercial-plaintiff-appellant) Granted

“The district court’s entry of summary judgment will be vacated and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

United States v. Welty
· 1972-10-24
Appeal (criminal-defendant-appellant) Denied

“The district court order of January 3, 1972, will be affirmed.”

A historical record

Judge Dusen 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.