Marjorie O. Rendell

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit circuit Appointed by William J. Clinton (Democratic) 30 signed orders read

Signed rulings

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

Public Citizen Health Research Group v. United States Department of Labor
· 2009-02-23
Petition for review (petitioners (Public Citizen Health Research Group and the Edison Electric Institute, on cross-petitions challenging OSHA's hexavalent-chromium exposure standard)) Granted in part

“For the reasons stated above, we will GRANT HRG's petition for review with regard to the employee notification requirements of the Cr(VI) standard, and REMAND the matter to OSHA for further consideration. We will DENY HRG's petition for review on all other grounds. We will DENY EEI's petition for review on all grounds.”

United States v. Abdul Outlaw
24-2114 · 2025-05-28
Appeal (appellant (the United States, appealing a suppression order)) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court's order granting Outlaw's motion to suppress.”

United States v. Evens Claude
20-3563 · 2021-10-27
Appeal (appellant (defendant Evens Claude)) Denied

“For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court's order denying Claude's sixth motion for compassionate release.”

Geist v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
21-3315 · 2022-09-29
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Miranda Geist)) Denied

“For this reason, we will affirm the District Court's order.”

Cepeda Cabrera v. Attorney General United States
18-2192 · 2019-04-19
Petition for review (petitioner (Edwin Rafael Cepeda Cabrera, an adopted lawful permanent resident facing removal)) Denied

“Because we have done so here, we will deny Cabrera's petition for review.”

Gourzong v. Attorney General United States
· 2016-06-14
Petition for review (petitioner (Gurson Oswald Gourzong, ordered removed as an aggravated felon)) Moot / procedural

“Because we agree with the BIA that convictions by special courts-martial are, as a general matter, convictions for purposes of Sec. 101(a)(48)(A) of the INA, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over Gourzong's petition for review. ... We will therefore dismiss his petition for review.”

Castillo Romero v. Attorney General United States
19-3550 · 2020-08-25
Petition for review (petitioner (David Castillo Romero, subject to a reinstated removal order)) Denied

“Because substantial evidence supports the IJ's determinations that Romero did not have a reasonable fear of torture or a reasonable fear of persecution, we will deny his petition for review.”

Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.
13-4329 · 2014-09-11
Appeal (appellants (plaintiff class representatives Richard Grandalski, Janet Grandalski, and Denise Cassese)) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.”

In re Friedman's Inc.; Friedman's Liquidating Trust v. Roth Staffing Companies LP
13-1712 · 2013-12-24
Appeal (appellant (Friedman's Liquidating Trust)) Denied

“We hold that Appellant's post-petition payment pursuant to the Wage Order does not affect the calculation of Appellee's preference liability, pursuant to Sec. 547. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court's order.”

Skiba v. Laher (In re Laher)
· 2007-08-02
Appeal (appellants (the debtors, Timothy and Deborah Laher)) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, we will reverse the order of the District Court. The case will be remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for entry of an order excluding the annuity from the bankruptcy estate and for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.”

In re Hechinger Investment Co. of Delaware, Inc.; Hechinger Investment Co. of Delaware, Inc. v. Universal Forest Products, Inc.
06-2166 & 06-2229 · 2007-06-07
Appeal (cross-appellants (Universal Forest Products, Inc. and the Hechinger Liquidation Trust)) Granted in part

“we will VACATE the order of the District Court insofar as it affirms the order of the Bankruptcy Court entering judgment in favor of Hechinger and denying Hechinger's prejudgment interest request. We will REMAND this matter ... We will AFFIRM the District Court's order insofar as it affirms the Bankruptcy Court's denial of UFP's spoliation motion.”

Trafford Distribution Center v. National Labor Relations Board
05-3765 & 05-4198 · 2007-02-26
Petition for review (petitioner (Trafford Distribution Center)) Denied

“The decisions by the ALJ and the Board are supported by substantial evidence and the petition for review will be DENIED.”

Put Judge Rendell's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Rendell actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Rendell's own signed orders and cites them.