Max Rosenn
How Judge Rosenn rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Rosenn no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Rosenn decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a diversity insurance appeal, Rosenn treated a state intermediate appellate court's reconciliation of two conflicting remedial statutes as persuasive evidence of how the state's highest court would rule.
“We find this statutory construction to be convincing and predict the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would similarly rule on this matter.”
In a bankruptcy preference appeal, Rosenn tested the ordinary-course defense against the parties' actual prior dealings. A newly negotiated workout with payment and lien practices absent from their earlier relationship did not qualify for the exception.
“Under section 547(c)(2), in determining if the FOF payment was made in the ordinary course of business, the district court had to analyze only the context of FOF's and Bradco's business relationship.”
Procedural preferences
In reviewing longshore workers' occupational-disease claims, Rosenn required evidence of what employee tests showed before permitting an inference that the employer knew of specific injuries; proof that testing merely occurred was not enough.
“The stipulated fact that the tests were taken is an insufficient basis to permit the inference to be drawn that the tests reflected hearing losses when the test results were available to the claimants and could have been introduced at trial.”
In an OSHA review, Rosenn placed the burden for a greater-hazard defense on the employer. The employer had to show that practical protective alternatives were unavailable, rather than require the agency to prove that such alternatives existed.
“In fact, the burden is not on OSHA to prove that a practical means of fall protection is available; rather, the burden is on the employer to prove that one is not.”
Cautions
In a sentencing appeal, Rosenn held that post-offense conduct could undermine an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction even when it differed from the offense of conviction, including unlawful conduct and violations of pretrial-release conditions.
“Continual criminal activity, even differing in nature from the convicted offense, is inconsistent with an acceptance of responsibility and an interest in rehabilitation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The judgment of the district court will be reversed and a new trial ordered.”
“The judgment of the district court will be reversed.”
“The judgments of conviction of the district court will be affirmed.”
“The order of the district court granting summary judgment will be affirmed.”
“The judgment of conviction will be affirmed.”
“The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.”
“For these reasons, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.”
“The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.”
“The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.”
“The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.”
“The petition for review will be granted, and the decisions of the Benefits Review Board will be reversed with instructions that the claims be vacated with prejudice.”
“Accordingly, the order of the district court with respect to Ghalamsiah's release on bail will be vacated and the case remanded to the district court with directions to remand the proceedings to the district director for disposition of Ghalamsiah's application for release on bail.”
A historical record
Judge Rosenn 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.