Karen J. Williams

How Judge Williams rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Position
Circuit judge
Status
Deceased
Served
1992–2013
Appointed by
George H. W. Bush (Republican)
Commissioned
March 2, 1992
Education
Columbia College (B.A., 1972); University of South Carolina School of Law (J.D., 1980)
Signed orders read
34

About Judge Williams

Karen J. Williams was a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Williams received a commission on March 2, 1992. Judge Williams assumed senior status on July 8, 2009 and served until death on November 2, 2013.

How Judge Williams decides

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

What persuades

A state-law claim did not create federal-question jurisdiction when even one supporting theory could succeed without interpreting federal law.

“In other words, if the plaintiff can support his claim with even one theory that does not call for an interpretation of federal law, his claim does not ‘arise under’ federal law for purposes of § 1331.”

A broadly worded arbitration clause reached disputes outside the contract itself when the claims had a significant relationship to that contract.

“In American Recovery, we held that a broadly-worded arbitration clause applies to disputes that do not arise under the governing contract when a ‘significant relationship’ exists between the asserted claims and the contract in which the arbitration clause is contained.”

Approval of a state regulatory amendment required the agency to analyze its practical effect and explain why the amended program remained effective.

“At a minimum, it must address the potential effect of the amendment on the state program and provide a reasoned analysis of its decision to approve it.”

Procedural preferences

An administrative benefits decision could not stand when the adjudicators inadequately explained why they credited some medical evidence over competing evidence.

“Because we conclude that the ALJs failed to explain adequately their reasoning for crediting some medical evidence over other medical evidence and relied upon evidence that was insufficient to support the award of benefits, we vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

A challenge to an arbitration award had to be served within the Federal Arbitration Act's three-month deadline.

“Under the Federal Arbitration Act, ‘[n]otice of motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is filed or delivered.’”

Signed rulings

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

Hale v. Trustees of the United Mine Workers Health & Retirement Funds
93-1352 · 1994-05-10
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Trustees is affirmed.”

United States v. Denard
93-5574 · 1994-05-16
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case for resentencing consistent with this opinion.”

United States v. Derrick Dushawn Williams
93-5748 · 1994-07-14
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“Because we agree that Williams was improperly classified as a career offender, we vacate his sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing. We find, however, that Williams stipulated to the drug amounts, and therefore, affirm the amounts agreed upon below.”

GBA Associates v. General Services Administration
94-1330 · 1994-08-22
Appeal (appellant) Moot / procedural

“For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that GBA lacks standing to challenge the validity of GSAR § 552.270-3 and, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.”

Broyles v. Schlossberg
94-2584 · 1996-04-01
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the district court, therefore, is affirmed.”

Stiltner v. Island Creek Coal Company
95-1192 · 1996-06-07
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

“we affirm the denial of benefits.”

Stone v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
95-1110, 95-1148 · 1997-01-28
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to grant judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual.”

United States v. Chen
95-5036, 95-5042 · 1997-10-31
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We reject their contentions and affirm their convictions and sentences.”

Wright v. Angelone
97-32 · 1998-07-16
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, we deny his motion for a COA and dismiss his petition.”

United States v. Seidman
97-4075 · 1998-09-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, we affirm Seidman’s conviction on all counts.”

Stewart v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service
98-1597 · 1999-06-23
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

“Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in reaching this conclusion, we affirm the BIA’s March 1998 decision and deny Stewart’s petition for review.”

NVR Homes, Inc. v. Clerks of the Circuit Courts for Anne Arundel County
98-2211, 98-2244, 98-2271, 98-2272, 98-2273 · 1999-07-12
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“For the following reasons, we vacate in part, affirm in part, and reverse in part.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Circuit judges do not have individually assigned trial-court caseloads. Williams never served as a U.S. district judge.

A historical record

Judge Williams no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.