Frank Sigel Dietrich

How Judge Dietrich rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Position
Circuit judge
Status
Deceased
Served
1927–1930
Appointed by
Calvin Coolidge (Republican)
Commissioned
January 3, 1927
Education
Brown University (A.B., 1887); Brown University (A.M., 1890); Read law (1891)
Signed orders read
25

About Judge Dietrich

Frank Sigel Dietrich was a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appointed by President Calvin Coolidge, Judge Dietrich received a commission on January 3, 1927. Judge Dietrich previously served on the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, commissioned there on December 17, 1907. Judge Dietrich served until death on October 2, 1930.

How Judge Dietrich decides

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

What persuades

In a bench trial, Dietrich treated improperly admitted evidence as harmless when the findings were supported by independent, properly framed testimony.

“The error was without prejudice.”

When reviewing attorney discipline, he matched the sanction to the demonstrated conduct and rejected permanent professional exclusion for an isolated lapse.

“we are of the view that censure and a required apology in court would have constituted adequate punishment.”

Procedural preferences

In McConnell v. United States, Dietrich declined to disturb the new-trial ruling, explaining that such motions ordinarily rest in the trial court’s discretion and have only limited appellate review.

“A motion for a new trial is ordinarily addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and with limited exceptions its action thereon is not reviewable.”

He gave preclusive effect to a prior adjudication when the court had jurisdiction over both the parties and the subject matter.

“To hold otherwise would be to scuttle the whole doctrine of judicial estoppel.”

Cautions

In Quan Jue v. Nagle, Dietrich affirmed dismissal of a petition challenging exclusion because discrepancies in the applicant’s and relatives’ testimony supported the immigration officers’ decision not to credit the claimed family relationship.

“we are unable to say that the immigration officers acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in declining to believe applicant and his two brothers”

Signed rulings

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

Mah Ket v. Weedin
· 1930-03-17
Appeal (appellant (habeas petitioner)) Denied

“Affirmed.”

Cvitzkovich v. United States
· 1929-11-12
Appeal (appellant (criminal defendant)) Denied

“Affirmed.”

Carr v. Zaja
· 1930-02-17
Appeal (appellant (Director of Immigration)) Denied

“Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.”

Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Curtis
· 1929-12-17
Appeal (appellant (defendant land company)) Granted

“the judgment must be reversed.”

Jones v. Jones
· 1929-11-25
Appeal (appellants) Denied

“Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.”

Allen & Robinson, Ltd. v. Inter-Island Steam Nav. Co.
· 1929-08-12
Appeal (appellants) Granted

“Beversed and' remanded, with directions-to award to appellants full damages resulting both from the collision and the stranding;, costs to appellants.”

Laurence A. Sweet Mfg. Co. v. Miller & Pardee, Inc.
· 1930-06-02
Appeal (appellants (accused infringers)) Denied

“Affirmed.”

McCarthy v. Bloedel Donovan Lumber Mills
· 1930-03-24
Appeal (appellants) Denied

“With that addition, the decree will be affirmed ; costs to appellee.”

United States v. Union Gap Irr. Dist.
· 1930-03-17
Appeal (appellant (United States)) Granted

“Reversed, with directions to set aside the decree”

Tse Yook Kee v. Weedin
· 1929-11-25
Appeal (appellant (habeas petitioner)) Denied

“Accordingly, the order appealed from will be affirmed.”

Quan Jue v. Nagle
· 1929-10-28
Appeal (appellant (habeas petitioner)) Denied

“Affirmed.”

Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. C. A. Wagner
· 1930-05-19
Appeal (appellant (defendant land company)) Granted

“Reversed, with directions to grant a new trial.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Not applicable to this circuit-court record.

A historical record

Judge Dietrich no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.