Francis Lund Van Dusen
How Judge Dusen rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Dusen no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Dusen
Francis Lund Van Dusen was a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, Judge Van Dusen received a commission on June 12, 1967. Judge Van Dusen previously served on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, commissioned there on August 1, 1955. Judge Van Dusen assumed senior status on May 16, 1977 and served until death on May 26, 1993.
How Judge Dusen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In In re Petition for Naturalization of Blasko, Van Dusen affirmed denial of naturalization because Blasko had not satisfied the statutory writing requirement, while acknowledging the sympathetic facts.
“While we sympathize with Mr. Blasko, we must enforce the law as it is written.”
In Swift v. Wheatley, he affirmed a finding that inherited property was worth $150,000 at the decedent's death because the taxpayer's expert evidence overcame an earlier $60,000 appraisal in a capital-gains dispute.
“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
In Gimbel Brothers v. Vanderherchen, Van Dusen held that a broad indemnity clause drafted by the tent lessor did not clearly excuse its own negligence, and vacated summary judgment for the lessor.
“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
In Fletcher v. Hook, he affirmed dismissal of a prisoner's civil-rights claim against appointed counsel because the complaint did not allege that counsel conspired with anyone under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
“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.
“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.”
“the judgment appealed from in No. 17110, as well as that appealed in No. 17085, will be affirmed.”
“The order of the District Court will be affirmed.”
“The District Court order of April 29, 1969, will be affirmed.”
“The above-mentioned orders of April 13 and May 6, 1970, will be affirmed.”
“In view of the record in this case, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the district court order of May 15, 1970, will be affirmed.”
“The December 17, 1969, district court order will be affirmed.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review of the Board’s order in this case will be denied.”
“The district court order of May 4, 1971, will be affirmed.”
“The district court’s entry of summary judgment will be vacated and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“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 here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.