Diana E. Murphy

How Judge Murphy rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Position
circuit
Status
Retired 2018
Served
1994–2018
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1994-10-11
Education
University of Minnesota (B.A., 1954); University of Minnesota Law School (J.D., 1974)
Signed orders read
31

How Judge Murphy decides

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

What persuades

A qualified-immunity ruling should rest on evidence that the supervising court actually knew the conditions at issue. The mere fact of judicial supervision did not establish awareness of prolonged seclusion when the reports did not describe those conditions.

“On this record, the juvenile court's supervision of Bradford's commitment does not establish that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.”

An unpreserved sentencing error can justify resentencing when the stated Guidelines range was plainly wrong, probably increased the sentence, and left the court unable to give the downward variance it intended.

“Because the court misstated the guideline range, however, it did not actually vary downward as intended.”

Procedural preferences

A federal declaratory action may yield to a parallel state case when the proceedings involve the same parties and state-law issues, all necessary parties are joined, and the state forum can resolve the dispute adequately.

“All parties in this case are named in the state court action, all necessary parties have been joined there, and the state proceeding is adequate to resolve the issues of state law presented by the parties.”

Cautions

Forced recruitment and threats do not by themselves establish asylum eligibility. The applicant still must connect the feared persecution to a protected ground, such as the applicant's political opinion.

“An alien must demonstrate that the persecution he fears is based on his political opinion.”

An adverse-possession theory fails without exclusive possession for the full statutory period. Shared occupation by the landowner during that period defeats the exclusivity element.

“The exclusive possession element is not met if the landowner and the potential adverse possessor both occupy the land during that ten year period.”

Signed rulings

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

Cesar Julio Chavez Dominguez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States
· 2003-07-15
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

“The order of the Board of Immigration Appeals is affirmed.”

Charles Osiemo Onyinkwa v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General for the United States of America
· 2004-07-15
Petition for review (petitioner) Moot / procedural

“Onyinkwa petitions for review, and we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”

Kelvin Shelby Malone v. Daniel Vasquez, Warden, San Quentin State Prison; Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, State of Missouri
· 1999-01-13
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Since we believe that the motion to reopen filed in the district court by petitioner on January 8 is a successive petition, we dismiss it and deny the request for stay of execution in order to file a successive petition.”

Merrill Arnes Jacobs v. Dave Dormire
· 2000-02-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

Nicholas Gentry v. Virgil Lansdown
· 1999-05-10
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”

Rickey A. Lee v. James A. Gammon, Superintendent, Moberly Correctional Center; Jeremiah Nixon, Attorney General, State of Missouri
· 1998-07-27
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”

United States v. David R. Boettger
· 2003-01-27
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“According, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”

United States v. Gregorio V. Arvizu
· 2001-11-06
Appeal (appellant) Denied

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

United States v. Lamond Leroy McCabe, Also Known as "Monte"
· 2001-11-05
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

United States v. Miguel Angel Arellano
· 2002-06-06
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

United States v. Carlus L. Phillips
· 2004-12-06
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For these reasons the judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

United States v. Mark A. Winheim
· 1998-05-08
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment is affirmed.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Circuit judges do not carry a trial caseload; not enumerated.

A historical record

Judge Murphy 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.