Simon Ernest Sobeloff

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

Judge Sobeloff 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
1956–1973
Appointed by
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
Commissioned
July 18, 1956
Education
University of Maryland School of Law, LL.B., 1915
Signed orders read
25

About Judge Sobeloff

Simon E. Sobeloff was a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Judge Sobeloff received a commission on July 18, 1956. Judge Sobeloff assumed senior status on December 31, 1970 and served until death on July 11, 1973.

How Judge Sobeloff decides

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

What persuades

In NLRB v. Terry Industries of Virginia, he enforced a Board order reinstating two employees with back pay because the record supported its finding that the company discharged them for union activity.

“since there is substantial evidence for the Board’s conclusion that the discharges were discriminatory, we enforce its order”

Requires disability-review courts to examine informal administrative records closely for fairness and consistency with Congress's design.

“the courts closely scrutinize the administrative proceedings to insure a result consistent with congressional intent and elemental fairness.”

Procedural preferences

Treats venue as a waivable convenience rule rather than a limit on judicial power.

“Venue is a doctrine of convenience and is not jurisdictional”

Remands when inconsistent trial findings prevent meaningful appellate review of responsibility and indemnity.

“the place to resolve mutually repugnant findings and conclusions is ordinarily in the District Court, not here.”

Cautions

In United States v. Solice, Sobeloff reversed a criminal conviction because the evidence supported only speculation rather than proof of guilt.

“no conviction may stand upon mere speculation”

Signed rulings

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

Padgett v. United States
· 1967-07-05
Appeal (federal-prisoner-petitioner) Granted

“we deem it appropriate, with the consent of the District Court, to remand the case to that court for further consideration”

National Labor Relations Board v. Terry Industries of Virginia, Inc.
· 1969-03-24
Petition for review (labor-board-petitioner) Granted

“the Board’s order is enforced in its entirety.”

Johnson v. Tamsberg
· 1970-07-31
Appeal (public-housing-tenant-appellant) Denied

“Affirmed.”

United States v. Brown
· 1967-08-01
Appeal (criminal-defendant-appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the District Court is Affirmed.”

Lewis v. Celebrezze
· 1966-04-06
Appeal (benefits-claimant-appellant) Denied

“Since there was substantial evidence to support the Hearing Examiner’s decision, the judgment of the District Court is Affirmed.”

United States v. Dyer
· 1968-02-01
Appeal (criminal-defendant-appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the District Court is Affirmed.”

Flack v. Cohen
· 1969-07-14
Appeal (benefits-claimant-appellant) Denied

“the Secretary’s decision denying benefits is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the judgment of the District Court is Affirmed.”

United States v. Ketchem
· 1969-12-29
Appeal (criminal-defendant-appellant) Granted

“Reversed and remanded.”

United States v. Hildreth
· 1967-12-04
Appeal (criminal-defendant-appellant) Denied

“In these circumstances, the judgment of the District Court will be Affirmed.”

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Devers
· 1968-01-12
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“Affirmed.”

United States v. Hollis
· 1970-03-30
Appeal (United States-appellant) Granted in part

“If the accident resulted solely from the negligence of the United States, without fault on Hollis’ part, then the United States should not be indemnified. On the other hand, if Hollis was contributorily negligent, then the liability must fall on his employer, Charleston Drydock. Therefore the case will be remanded to the District Court for explicit findings clarifying whether or not Hollis was negligent, and to award or withhold indemnity accordingly.”

Cantrell v. United States
· 1966-01-25
Appeal (retired-federal-employee-appellant) Denied

“the District Court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint. Affirmed.”

A historical record

Judge Sobeloff 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.