John J. Gibbons

How Judge Gibbons rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Gibbons 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 1990
Served
1969–1990
Appointed by
Richard M. Nixon (Republican)
Commissioned
1969-12-18
Education
College of the Holy Cross, B.S., 1947; Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1950
Signed orders read
29

How Judge Gibbons decides

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

What persuades

Judicial review of an administrative decision depends on the reasons and materials before the decisionmaker at the time. A later-created letter could not supply a missing basis for the board’s action.

“The letter in question, however, was not before either the Local Board or the Appeal Board when these Boards passed upon appellant’s conscientious objector claim. It was not written until after his indictment. It cannot provide a basis for judicial review of the Board’s action.”

A limitations defense cannot be resolved on summary judgment by choosing among disputed facts about when the plaintiff knew the cause of an injury. The evidence and reasonable inferences must leave no genuine factual issue.

“Since there are genuine fact issues as to the statute of limitations defense we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”

Procedural preferences

On a request to stay litigation for arbitration, the court decides whether the written arbitration agreement remains operative or was superseded by a later contract.

“Thus the defendant was entitled to have the court decide, on its motion for a stay pending arbitration, whether the written contract containing an arbitration clause was still in effect or had been super-ceded, as plaintiff claims, by an oral agreement to perform the same work.”

Cautions

Economic injury from a judgment does not alone create appellate standing. An appellant must identify an enforceable right affected by the district court’s judgment.

“Therefore, since the judgment of the district court does not affect any enforceable rights of the appellants, the appeals will be dismissed.”

The government’s minimum-affidavit obligation for a grand-jury subpoena arises when a witness resists and the government seeks judicial enforcement, not when the subpoena is first issued.

“The enforcement proceeding, not the issuance of the subpoena, is the triggering event for the affidavit requirement.”

Signed rulings

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

United States Ex Rel. Regis Charles Schultz v. Joseph Brierley, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
· 1971-10-18
Appeal (appellant (Regis Charles Schultz (habeas petitioner))) Granted

“Since, so far as we can tell, the only reason for denial of the appellant’s habeas corpus application was his failure to press, in a Pennsylvania collateral proceeding, those federal claims which he had already raised on direct appeal, the order appealed from shall be reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings.”

United States v. James Robert Hershey
· 1971-10-28
Appeal (appellant (James Robert Hershey (criminal defendant))) Granted

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

Paul B. Owens v. Joseph R. Brierley, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
· 1971-11-17
Appeal (appellant (Paul B. Owens (prisoner-plaintiff))) Granted

“The order dismissing the complaint will be reversed and the cause will be remanded for further proceedings in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Government of the Virgin Islands v. James Duvergee
· 1972-04-05
Appeal (appellant (James Duvergee (criminal defendant))) Denied

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

Clarence Marshall v. Joseph R. Brierley, Supt., State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
· 1972-05-24
Appeal (appellant (Clarence Marshall (prisoner-plaintiff))) Granted

“The judgment of the district court will be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation v. George J. Hykel, and Havertown Savings and Loan Association
· 1972-11-06
Appeal (appellant (George J. Hykel)) Moot / procedural

“The appeal will be dismissed and the case remanded to the district court for the entry of an order vacating the judgment and dismissing the case on the ground of mootness.”

Brad S. Beightol, a Minor, by His Guardian, Arlene L. Beightol v. Joseph Kunowski
· 1973-09-19
Appeal (appellant (Brad S. Beightol (minor plaintiff))) Granted

“The judgment of the district court will be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Utility Contractors Ass'n of New Jersey, Inc. v. Toops
· 1974-12-31
Appeal (appellant (Three New Jersey Plumbing and Pipefitting locals (intervening/objecting defendants))) Moot / procedural

“Therefore, since the judgment of the district court does not affect any enforceable rights of the appellants, the appeals will be dismissed.”

James E. McKenna v. Nicholas Fargo, Director of Public Safety, Jersey City, and Raymond Gibney, Chief of Jersey City Fire Department
· 1975-02-11
Appeal (appellant (James E. McKenna (plaintiff))) Granted

“The order appealed from will be reversed, and the cause remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

United States v. Robert Louis Johnson Appeal of John Grandinetti, in No. 74-1935. Appeal of Joseph Cappucci, in No. 74-2161
· 1975-04-15
Appeal (appellant (John Grandinetti and Joseph Cappucci (criminal defendants))) Denied

“The judgment appealed from will be affirmed.”

Robert Hanna v. United States of America Veterans' Administration Hospital
· 1975-04-18
Appeal (appellant (Robert Hanna (plaintiff))) Granted

“Since there are genuine fact issues as to the statute of limitations defense we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”

United States v. Alfred B. Diggs
· 1977-12-30
Appeal (appellant (United States (government))) Denied

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

A historical record

Judge Gibbons 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.