Albert Joseph Engel Jr.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit circuit Deceased · served 1973–2013 Appointed by Richard M. Nixon (Republican) 25 signed orders read

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

How Judge Engel decides

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

What persuades

Applies the same substantial-evidence test to convictions resting on direct or circumstantial proof.

“In short, we hold once and for all that our court on appeal will reverse a judgment for insufficiency of evidence only if this judgment is not supported by substantial and competent evidence upon the record as a whole, and that this rule applies whether the evidence is direct or wholly circumstantial.”

Defers to administrative factfinding when the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, even if the court might have chosen differently on a fresh record.

“Even if the Court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo, the Board’s unfair labor practice findings are entitled to enforcement if supported by substantial evidence.”

Evaluates qualified immunity through the range of judgments a reasonable official could make with the information available at the time.

“The broad range of reasonable professional judgment accorded the defendants here was not exceeded.”

Procedural preferences

Requires district judges to conduct de novo review of the portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation to which a party objects.

“Due to the great importance of adherence to the express provisions of section 636(b), we VACATE the decision of the district court in all three of these cases and REMAND to the district court for a “de novo” review of the record for at least those objections set forth by the parties and for further proceedings consistent herewith.”

Treats subject-matter jurisdiction as unavailable when a federal statute supplies no private cause of action and the remaining claims arise under state law.

“For the foregoing reasons, we find that the district court lacks federal jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim.”

Cautions

Reads statutory exemptions narrowly when an employer uses an intermediary instead of dealing directly with protected workers.

“It is not Rios’ recommendation, but rather the lack of any direct contact between the employer and the migrant worker, that cost GCC its exemption.”

Signed rulings

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

Maglaya v. Buchkoe
· 1975-04-21
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, the judgment of the dis- . trict court is affirmed.”

Cassity v. United States
· 1975-08-27
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

Dow Chemical Co. v. Taylor
· 1975-07-01
Appeal (appellant) Moot / procedural

“The appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.”

EEOC v. New York Times Broadcasting Service, Inc.
· 1976-10-04
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.”

United States v. West
· 1977-10-06
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“Remanded for modification of the judgment to reflect a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 659 instead of under 18 U.S.C. § 922(j).”

Southern Ohio Coal Co. v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission
· 1983-09-12
Petition for review (petitioner) Granted

“Accordingly, the decision of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission is REVERSED.”

United States v. Stone
· 1984-11-27
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the district court is Affirmed.”

Grubb v. W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital, Inc.
· 1985-04-16
Petition for rehearing (petitioner) Granted

“Accordingly, the original judgment of this court is vacated and the petition for rehearing is granted. Upon reconsideration, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”

Dearing v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
· 1987-04-10
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and the cause REMANDED to the district court for a determination of the amount of fees for the effort reasonably expended by counsel in his representation of the plaintiff.”

Dougherty v. Parsec, Inc.
· 1987-07-22
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”

Lawrence v. Schriber
· 1988-02-16
Appeal (appellant) Moot / procedural

“We dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.”

Flournoy v. Marshall
· 1988-03-22
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Due to the great importance of adherence to the express provisions of section 636(b), we VACATE the decision of the district court in all three of these cases and REMAND to the district court for a “de novo” review of the record for at least those objections set forth by the parties and for further proceedings consistent herewith.”

A historical record

Judge Engel 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.