Francis Arthur Garrecht
Judge Garrecht no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Garrecht decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Garrecht deferred to an administrative finding when the record supplied a rational basis for the agency's conclusion.
“where there is a rational basis for the conclusion of the administrative body, our duty is ended.”
In admiralty review, he gave substantial weight to findings made by the judge who heard the witnesses and assessed credibility.
“Although an appeal in admiralty is a trial de novo, the trial judge’s findiñgs must stand unless they are clearly against the weight or preponderance of the evidence.”
Procedural preferences
Garrecht treated the absence of an appeal from the final judgment as fatal to appellate jurisdiction over that judgment.
“No appeal was ever taken from the judgment entered January 8, 1945.”
He found no abuse of discretion in denying a continuance when counsel waited until the day before trial to seek a witness.
“This court cannot say there was an abuse of discretion which prejudiced the appellants’ case.”
Cautions
Garrecht reversed when a codefendant's out-of-court identification reached the jury indirectly, violating the hearsay rule.
“This method of proof was a violation of the hearsay rule.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the order of the court below, dismissing the appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, is affirmed.”
“We affirm the judgment of the lower court denying appellant’s application for correction of the sentence.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Not applicable to this circuit-court record.
A historical record
Judge Garrecht 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.