James Braxton Craven Jr.

How Judge Craven rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Position
circuit
Status
Deceased
Served
1966–1977
Appointed by
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic)
Commissioned
1966-06-29
Education
Duke University, A.B., 1939; Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1942
Signed orders read
25

How Judge Craven decides

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

What persuades

Looks to statutory purpose when deciding whether a remedial consumer-protection provision should reach the conduct before the court.

“The language should be construed liberally in light of its broadly remedial purpose.”

Defers factual conflicts in technical medical evidence to the responsible agency when its conclusion has substantial evidentiary support.

“it is the responsibility of the Secretary and not the courts to reconcile inconsistencies in the medical evidence”

Procedural preferences

Favors disclosure of presentence reports to reinforce the appearance and administration of justice, subject to limited confidentiality concerns.

“disclosure when requested should be favored in order that the appearance of justice will be fostered and respect for the administration of the law increased.”

Requires a demonstrated need before compelling the government to provide an existing transcript for a collateral attack.

“if no need is shown, there is no constitutional right to a transcript, regardless of how easily and inexpensively the state could furnish it.”

Cautions

Treats labor-law predictions as unprotected threats when they are not carefully tied to objective, demonstrably probable consequences.

“the employer’s expression of views, argument or opinion, fully protected by the First Amendment and by the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(c), was not so carefully exercised as to screen out intended implications of ‘threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit’”

Will not permit bankruptcy procedure to produce a legal fraud that places jointly held property beyond legitimate creditors' reach.

“We cannot conceive that any court would lend its aid to the accomplishment of a result so shocking to the conscience.”

Signed rulings

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

Bennett v. Maryland
· 1970-04-28
Appeal (habeas-petitioner-appellant) Denied

“Affirmed.”

Woodall v. Pettibone
· 1972-08-08
Appeal (habeas-petitioner-appellant) Granted

“Reversed.”

Jones v. Superintendent, Virginia State Farm
· 1972-09-01
Appeal (state-official-appellant) Granted

“Reversed.”

United States v. Matthews
· 1973-02-06
Appeal (criminal-defendant-appellant) Denied

“Affirmed.”

United States v. Johnson
· 1974-03-27
Appeal (criminal-defendant-appellant) Denied

“Affirmed.”

Cheatham v. Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
· 1974-08-01
Appeal (employee-appellant) Denied

“Affirmed.”

National Labor Relations Board v. Stone & Thomas
· 1974-09-10
Petition for enforcement (agency-petitioner) Denied

“Enforcement denied. Remanded.”

Weaver v. Williams
· 1975-01-20
Appeal (habeas-petitioners-appellants) Denied

“Affirmed.”

Scherer v. Cosgrove
· 1975-02-19
Appeal (state-official-appellant) Granted

“Reversed and remanded.”

Mays v. Harris
· 1975-06-25
Appeal (state-official-appellant) Granted

“Reversed.”

Sacilotto v. National Shipping Corp.
· 1975-08-06
Appeal (longshoreman-appellant) Denied

“Affirmed.”

United States v. Johnson
· 1975-11-11
Appeal (criminal-defendant-appellant) Granted

“Reversed and remanded.”

A historical record

Judge Craven 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.