Jesse Ernest Eschbach

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit circuit Retired 2005 · served 1981–2005 Appointed by Ronald Reagan (Republican) 28 signed orders read

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

How Judge Eschbach decides

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

What persuades

Plain-meaning textualism: he refused to stretch a term beyond its ordinary meaning even to reach fringe conduct.

“The fact that the term “advertising” may be stretched to encompass fringe activity is irrelevant if that result is contrary to plain meaning.”

Anti-surplusage canon in statutory construction: he rejected a reading that would render statutory language superfluous.

“The debtor’s interpretation, however, renders superfluous the phrase “value, as of the effective date of the plan.””

Procedural preferences

Deferential standard-of-review discipline: on clearly-erroneous review he would not disturb a district court's choice between two permissible readings of the evidence.

“The trial court’s choice between two permissible views of the evidence cannot be considered clearly erroneous.”

He treated extraordinary post-judgment relief as genuinely exceptional, declining to disturb a Rule 60(b) denial absent an abuse of discretion.

“Relief under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy that is granted only in exceptional circumstances.”

Signed rulings

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

Breuer Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Toronado Systems of America, Inc.
· 1982-08-16
Appeal (appellant (party challenging the judgment below)) Denied

“the trial court’s patient conduct of these proceedings was free from any reversible error, and the judgment of the district court is accordingly AFFIRMED.”

Sanders v. Israel
· 1983-09-21
Appeal (appellant (party challenging the judgment below)) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial of Sanders’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.”

United States ex rel. Johnson v. DeRobertis
· 1983-09-23
Appeal (appellant (party challenging the judgment below)) Granted

“For the reasons expressed in this order, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing.”

United States v. Carl Welsh
· 1983-11-30
Appeal (appellant (party challenging the judgment below)) Denied

“For the reasons expressed above, the appellant’s conviction is affirmed.”

In the Matter of Burgess Wholesale Mfg. Opticians, Inc., Debtor. Appeal of United States of America
· 1983-11-30
Appeal (appellant (party challenging the judgment below)) Granted

“For the reasons expressed, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Wilson v. Morris
· 1984-01-05
Appeal (appellant (party challenging the judgment below)) Granted

“For the reasons expressed in this opinion, the judgment of the district court is reversed.”

United States v. Willie J. Key
· 1984-01-18
Appeal (appellant (party challenging the judgment below)) Granted in part

“Key’s convictions on Counts III, IV, V, and VII are affirmed. Key’s conviction on Count II is reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for a new trial on Count II.”

United States v. Yvonne Cooks Johns
· 1984-03-01
Appeal (appellant (party challenging the judgment below)) Granted

“For the reasons expressed above, we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Yoggerst v. Hedges
· 1984-07-23
Appeal (appellant (party challenging the judgment below)) Denied

“For the reasons expressed above, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

Central DuPage Hospital, et al. v. Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services
· 1985-04-25
Appeal (appellant (party challenging the judgment below)) Granted

“The judgments of the district courts are vacated and the cases are remanded with directions to vacate the decisions of the Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration (in No. 83-3259) and of the Deputy Administrator (in No. 83-3255) and to remand the cases to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.”

Amax Coal Company v. Job W. Anderson & Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
· 1985-08-22
Appeal (appellant (party challenging the judgment below)) Denied

“Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.”

Norman Higgins v. The White Sox Baseball Club, Inc., Artnell Company and Illinois Sports Service, Inc.
· 1986-04-02
Appeal (appellant (party challenging the judgment below)) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, the judgment in favor of the defendants is Reversed and the case is Remanded for a new trial.”

A historical record

Judge Eschbach 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.