John Weld Peck II

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit circuit Deceased · served 1966–1993 Appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic) 25 signed orders read

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

How Judge Peck decides

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

What persuades

Reviews sufficiency by asking whether any rational factfinder could find every element beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is viewed for the prosecution.

“after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Treats disputed factual questions as unsuitable for summary judgment.

“this case presents questions of fact which render it an improper vehicle for summary judgment”

Accepts substantial compliance with foreign-sovereign service requirements when technical omissions do not defeat actual notice.

“Where a party has received such notice, despite technical omissions in the manner of service, the purpose of the Act if not its letter has been- satisfied.”

Procedural preferences

Treats a judgment as nonfinal while a permissible amendment may revive the action.

“there is no final decision if under its rule amendment of the complaint is permissible and may save the action.”

Requires an administrative discrimination charge to include a sworn basis for believing the named company committed unlawful practices.

“Such a charge would necessarily include an oath by the charging commissioner that there is cause to believe that appellant committed unlawful employment practices.”

Requires the labor board to hold an evidentiary hearing when material factual disputes bear on whether an election was fair.

“The NLRB abuses its discretion if it refuses to grant an evidentiary hearing when there exist material issues of fact concerning whether a fair election was held.”

Cautions

Does not review the merits of a labor-arbitration award merely because the arbitrator's factfinding appears improvident.

“courts may not review the merits of an award even where the fact-finding is "improvident."”

Limits federal habeas relief to remedies within the district court's authority.

“goes beyond the power of the district court and is therefore vacated.”

Distinguishes unlawful competition from mere copying of an unpatented article when no palming off occurs.

“there can be no unfair competition with respect to an unpatented article where there is mere copying and no palming-off”

Signed rulings

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

Hayton v. Egeler
· 1977-05-31
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.”

Wallace v. Havener
· 1977-04-14
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“We hold that the district court was correct in determining that petitioner was placed in double jeopardy by retrial on Counts 2 through 5, and affirm, the order of the district court, except for that portion which remanded the petitioner’s case to the state court for resentencing on Count 1.”

Haycraft v. Board of Education of Jefferson County
· 1977-08-23
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

Shirley v. United States
· 1977-04-29
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Reversed and remanded.”

United States v. Rimar
· 1977-07-27
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgments of the district court are affirmed.”

Duncan v. Leeds
· 1984-09-07
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.”

In re Kent Holland Die Casting & Plating, Inc.
· 1991-01-07
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The decision of the district court is affirmed.”

Middleton v. Reynolds Metals Co.
· 1992-05-29
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“we REVERSE the district court’s decision and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Sherer v. Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.
· 1993-03-02
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for further action consistent with this decision.”

Simescu v. Emmet County Department of Social Services
· 1991-08-19
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to WRC.”

Lovelace v. O'Hara
· 1993-02-11
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause is remanded for dismissal of the amended complaint on the grounds that it is barred by the statute of limitations.”

Fitzgerald v. Great Central Insurance Co.
· 1988-03-18
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Accordingly, the order of the district court granting a directed verdict for plaintiffs is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.”

A historical record

Judge Peck 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.