Gerald McLaughlin

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit circuit Deceased · served 1943–1977 Appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic) 25 signed orders read

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

How Judge McLaughlin decides

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

What persuades

Uses equitable authority to ensure litigants receive a hearing on an essential disputed issue.

“We choose to make this disposition because plaintiffs have not yet been given their day in court on this essential issue.”

Requires military administrative review to follow its controlling procedures before judicial deference is warranted.

“The controlling Army regulations were meticulously observed.”

Procedural preferences

Requires jurisdiction-postponing motions to comply with filing and service rules and to be clearly reflected on the docket.

“If a filed paper is to deprive us of *573jurisdiction, it should indicate service complying with the rules or at least be susceptible of such proof.”

Treats local procedural rulemaking as insufficient authority for major disciplinary innovations.

“the local rule making power, while not limited to the trivial, cannot extend to basic disciplinary innovations requiring a uniform approach.”

Cautions

Frames juror partiality as a question of fundamental trial fairness.

“The problem here is whether there was fundamental unfairness in appellant’s trial.”

Signed rulings

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

Law v. Rothensies
· 1946-03-29
Appeal (tax-collector-appellant) Denied

“Affirmed.”

Philadelphia Record Co. v. Manufacturing Photo-Engravers' Ass'n of Philadelphia
· 1946-05-17
Appeal (newspaper-publisher-appellant) Granted

“The order of the District Court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to that Court to grant a preliminary injunction forthwith to the plaintiff against the defendants.”

In re Central Railroad of New Jersey
· 1947-07-15
Appeal (state-appellant) Granted

“Order number 260 of the District Court which is the subject of this appeal is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”

Gordon v. Robinson
· 1954-01-13
Appeal (plaintiff-appellants) Granted

“The judgment will be reversed and the cause will be remanded for a new trial.”

E. M. Fleischmann Lumber Corp. v. Resources Corp. International
· 1954-04-09
Appeal (cross-appellants) Denied

“The judgment will be affirmed.”

United States v. Richie
· 1955-05-18
Appeal (criminal-defendant-appellant) Granted in part

“The judgment of conviction will be reversed as to Counts 3, 6 and 9 3 and affirmed as to Counts 4, 5, 7 and 8.”

United States v. DeRosier
· 1956-02-03
Appeal (criminal-defendant-appellants) Granted

“The order of the district court of March 11, 1955 will be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”

Steward v. Atlantic Refining Co.
· 1956-07-09
Appeal (civil-plaintiff-appellants) Moot / procedural

“The motion to dismiss these appeals will be denied.”

Pahoulis v. United States
· 1957-03-22
Appeal (taxpayer-appellant) Granted

“The judgment of the district court will be reversed and the case remanded with directions that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of the tax paid by him.”

Fisch v. Gould
· 1957-08-13
Appeal (patent-holder-plaintiffs-appellants) Granted

“The judgment of the district court will be reversed. The cause will be remanded with the direction to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the admitted infringement and for such other proceedings as may be indicated.”

United States ex rel. De Vita v. McCorkle
· 1957-11-12
Appeal (state-prisoner-appellant) Granted

“The orders of the district court of July 14 and 25, 1955 will be reversed and the cause remanded to that court for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in accordance with the above outlined terms.”

International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
· 1959-06-30
Appeal (employer-appellant) Denied

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

A historical record

Judge McLaughlin 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.