Cornelia Groefsema Kennedy

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit circuit Deceased · served 1979–2014 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 25 signed orders read

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

How Judge Kennedy decides

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

What persuades

Gives claim-preclusive effect to an involuntary dismissal that operates as an adjudication on the merits.

“Under the clear language of Rule 41(b) and our court’s interpretation of that rule, the district court’s decision was an adjudication on the merits and should be gven preclusive effect.”

Directs plea-coercion allegations outside the appellate record to collateral review.

“a collateral attack that should be brought in a § 2255 motion.”

Grants qualified immunity when the reviewed use of force was constitutionally reasonable.

“the force used was constitutionally reasonable”

Procedural preferences

Affirms summary judgment despite defective service when the opposing party had actual notice and identifies no genuine material dispute.

“when a party is not properly served but nonetheless has actual notice of a summary judgment motion prior to its disposition, the district court’s summary judgment decision should be affirmed unless the party who failed to oppose the motion demonstrates on appeal that the existence of a genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment as a matter of law.”

Requires truly multiple claims before Rule 54(b) can support an interlocutory appeal.

“Rule 54(B) applies only to “multiple claims””

Requires lower courts and agencies to obey the directions in an appellate mandate.

“it is the duty of the lower court, or the agency from which appeal is taken, to comply with the mandate of the court and to obey the directions therein without variation and without departing from such directions.”

Cautions

Tests a guilty-plea colloquy for harmless error by asking whether it satisfied Rule 11's core concerns.

“When determining whether a district court committed harmless error under Rule 11, we consider whether the plea colloquy at issue satisfied the Rule’s “core concerns.””

Applies controlling circuit precedent even where the rule produces practical concerns.

“We are bound by HNRC to conclude that National Union’s request for reimbursement is not an “actual” expense within the meaning of the bankruptcy code.”

Applies federal preemption without resolving an unnecessary state choice-of-law question.

“Federal law would preempt Plaintiffs’ claims regardless of whether Minnesota or Ohio law applied.”

Signed rulings

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

Pocker v. Brown
· 1987-05-26
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.”

National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. VP Buildings, Inc.
· 2010-06-04
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Because the arguments raised by appellant are foreclosed by our decision in HNRC, we AFFIRM.”

McKinney v. Ludwick
· 2011-08-19
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of McKinney’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.”

Bragg v. Flint Board of Education
· 2009-05-13
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the ruling of the district court.”

United States v. Martin
· 2002-10-30
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We therefore AFFIRM the sentence imposed by the district court.”

Seals v. J.C. Penney Life Insurance Co.
· 2001-01-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“we affirm the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning employed by that court”

United States v. Murdock
· 2002-10-30
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For the forgoing reasons, we AFFIRM the sentence imposed by the district court.”

United States v. Hawkins
· 2009-02-04
Appeal (appellant) Denied

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

United States v. Woods
· 2009-02-04
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”

Frazier v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc.
· 2005-12-22
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.”

In re Williams
· 2004-01-12
Appeal (appellant) Moot / procedural

“Petitioner’s motions for remand to the district court, for preliminary injunctive relief and for stay of execution are DENIED.”

United States v. Lostia
· 2001-10-04
Appeal (appellant) Denied

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

A historical record

Judge Kennedy 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.