Frank John Magill

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit circuit Retired 2013 · served 1986–2013 Appointed by Ronald Reagan (Republican) 30 signed orders read

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

How Judge Magill decides

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

What persuades

Magill treated streamlined BIA review as constitutionally sufficient because direct judicial review remained available.

“Where the BIA affirms without opinion we simply review the decision of the IJ directly; the availability of such review is sufficient to satisfy due process.”

He rejected a presumption favoring attorney fees for prevailing ERISA plaintiffs.

“there is no presumption in favor of a fee award for prevailing ERISA plaintiffs.”

Procedural preferences

He treated testimonial ambiguities and conflicts as jury questions when they created a genuine factual dispute.

“Ambiguities and even conflicts in a deponent's testimony are generally matters for the jury to sort out”

He required additional district-court factfinding when the appellate record could not resolve the statutory commerce element.

“because of insufficient fact finding at the district court level on the issue of the Church annex’s commercial connection, we are unable to determine from the record whether the Church annex meets the requirements mandated by Jones.”

Cautions

He emphasized the public-safety rationale underlying official immunity for discretionary police decisions.

“If immunity were withheld from Detective Leyshock, the effect would be to lessen the effectiveness of law enforcement and unreasonably endanger individuals in situations that are already dangerous enough.”

Signed rulings

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

Black Hills Institute of Geological Research v. United States Department of Justice
978 F.2d 1043 · 1992-11-02
Appeal (fossil institute appellant) Denied

“In summary, we: 1) affirm the district court’s custody order in Black Hills II; 2) dismiss with prejudice the appeal of the denial of injunctive relief in Black Hills I; and 3) remand for further proceedings on the merits.”

Fuller v. Secretary of Defense
30 F.3d 86 · 1994-07-18
Appeal (Marine reservist appellant) Denied

“We affirm the order of the district court dismissing Fuller’s complaint, denying him leave to amend the complaint, and denying Rule 11 sanctions.”

Minneapolis Community Development Agency v. Lake Calhoun Associates
928 F.2d 299 · 1991-03-21
Appeal (contract parties appellants and cross-appellants) Denied

“Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

Mississippi Transport, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
33 F.3d 972 · 1994-08-29
Petition for review (employer petitioner) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, we refuse to enforce the Board’s order as to the March 26 memorandum, but enforce the order as to Shaleen’s June 18 meeting with Leonard and Berger’s discharge.”

Murray v. Leyshock
915 F.2d 1196 · 1990-10-03
Appeal (injured plaintiff appellant) Denied

“We affirm the entry of judgment.”

United States v. Severe
29 F.3d 444 · 1994-07-13
Appeal (criminal defendants appellants) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgments and sentences of the district court.”

United States v. Pomeroy
810 F.2d 184 · 1987-01-28
Appeal (United States appellant) Denied

“we affirm.”

United States v. Wiley
29 F.3d 345 · 1994-08-12
Appeal (defendant appellant) Denied

“For these reasons, we affirm the jury’s verdict and the district court’s sentence.”

St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
34 F.3d 1394 · 1994-09-09
Appeal (taxpayer appellant) Granted in part

“Accordingly, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand to the tax court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Steurer v. Bowen
815 F.2d 1249 · 1987-04-17
Appeal (benefits claimant appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and the AU’s decision dismissing Steurer’s claims for mother’s insurance benefits and child’s insurance benefits.”

Mohamed v. Ashcroft
395 F.3d 835 · 2005-02-02
Petition for review (asylum petitioner) Denied

“We deny the petition for review.”

United States v. Hall
325 F.3d 980 · 2003-05-16
Appeal (defendant appellant) Denied

“For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm Hall’s conviction.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Not applicable to this circuit-court record.

A historical record

Judge Magill 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.