Arba Seymour Van Valkenburgh

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit circuit Retired 1944 · served 1925–1944 Appointed by Calvin Coolidge (Republican) 25 signed orders read

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

How Judge Valkenburgh decides

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

What persuades

Van Valkenburgh treated substantial evidence as binding on appellate review even when another factual view might seem more convincing.

“Such findings when based upon substantial evidence are conclusive, no matter how convincing the argument that upon the evidence the findings should have been different.”

He rejected resolving taxpayer rights on purely technical grounds.

“the rights of taxpayers are not to be determined on merely technical grounds.”

Procedural preferences

He enforced preservation requirements for appellate sufficiency challenges.

“an appellate court will not decide the question of the sufficiency of the evidence, in the absence of a request for an instructed verdict, unless there is a total absence of evidence and the court is satisfied that there has been a miscarriage of justice.”

He declined to consider a tax theory first raised in the court of appeals.

“It is urged here for the first time, and is not properly before this court on the Commissioner’s petition to review the decision of the Board.”

Cautions

He deferred to an equity chancellor's supported findings absent clear legal or factual error.

“in the absence of plain error of law, or obvious mistake of fact, his finding should not be disturbed.”

Signed rulings

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

Spencer v. Hamilton
· 1926-04-28
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The order dismissing the writ must be sustained and the decree affirmed. It is so ordered.”

Purciller v. United States
· 1927-11-14
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“No error being perceived, the judgment below should be affirmed; and it is so ordered.”

McCannon v. United States
· 1927-11-14
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment accordingly should be and is affirmed.”

Reese v. White
· 1928-03-13
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“It follows that the decree below should be and is affirmed.”

Chavez v. United States
· 1928-11-24
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“that the judgment of conviction should be affirmed. It is so ordered.”

Jas. H. Forbes Tea & Coffee Co. v. Ranney-Davis Mercantile Co.
· 1928-11-26
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The decree of the trial court dismissing the bill was right and is affirmed.”

Barnett v. Travelers' Ins. Co. of Hartford
· 1929-04-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment is affirmed.”

United States v. Northern Pac. R.
· 1929-05-01
Petition for rehearing (rehearing petitioner) Denied

“This being so, the conclusion heretofore reached is in no way affected by the modifications made, and the petition for rehearing is accordingly denied.”

Allen v. Hudson
· 1929-10-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The decree below is affirmed.”

Treat v. Rogers
· 1929-10-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The decree is affirmed.”

Callaway v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
· 1929-10-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment below is affirmed.”

Solomon v. Newburger
· 1929-10-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“It follows that the judgment below should be, and it is, Affirmed.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Not applicable to this circuit-court record.

A historical record

Judge Valkenburgh 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.