Carl Eugene McGowan

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit circuit Deceased · served 1963–1987 Appointed by John F. Kennedy (Democratic) 31 signed orders read

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

How Judge McGowan decides

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

What persuades

Anchored agency authority in the text and scope of the enabling statute, and did not hesitate to strike regulations that exceeded the statutory grant even while resolving jurisdiction in the agency's favor.

“Finding that this court has exclusive original jurisdiction to review these regulations, we hold that they exceed the statutory mandate of Section 211 insofar as they apply to motor oil and motor oil additives.”

Procedural preferences

Insisted that agencies observe notice-and-comment procedure; vacated an order where the agency made major modifications to negotiated agreements without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.

“We vacate the Commission's order and remand the case for further hearing as to the addition of a multiple voting provision in No. 10374 and the addition of a cargo capacity limitation in No. 10266-3.”

Applied statute-of-limitations and finality rules strictly, treating the strictness as the legislature's choice even when the result seemed harsh, so long as the litigant retained a remedy elsewhere.

“general rule that one can glean from all the eases discussed above is that courts should apply the statute of limitations strictly, even though barring actions often seems arbitrary and inequitable.”

Cautions

Calibrated the deference owed to an agency by the nature of the question, according less weight to an agency's reading when the issue was legal rather than technical or industrial.

“is due less of the deference that courts traditionally accord an administrator when the issues in question have a technical or industrial rather than legal hue.”

Signed rulings

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

Clemons v. United States
· 1968-12-06
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed.”

Knox Hill Tenant Council v. Washington
· 1971-02-04
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“The judgment of dismissal of the complaint is reversed, except as to the D.C. appellees responsible for the enforcement of the Housing Regulations; and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.”

United States v. Heinlein
· 1973-11-07
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“The convictions appealed from are affirmed with the exception that in Nos. 23,227 and 23,228 the convictions for felony-murder are reversed.”

United States v. Norman Williams
· 1975-10-23
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Affirmed.”

United States v. McClinnhan
· 1981-07-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“we affirm the convictions of appellant McClinnhan on Counts I and II of the indictment.”

United States v. Garnett
· 1981-04-15
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent herewith.”

Carey v. Hume
· 1974-06-05
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Affirmed.”

Lubrizol Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency
· 1977-08-12
Petition for review (petitioner) Granted

“Accordingly, we invalidate the regulations in Part 79 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations insofar as they apply to motor oil and motor oil additives.”

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle
· 1978-09-05
Petition for review (petitioner) Granted in part

“the 1977 effluent limitations for the bleached segment of the American paper industry are upheld, and the petitions denied, except that the BOD limitation for acetate grade dissolving sulfite mills is remanded to the Agency for further proceedings consistent herewith.”

Compania De Gas De Nuevo Laredo, S.A. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1979-04-19
Petition for review (petitioner) Granted in part

“In No. 78-1001, we affirm the Commission on the ground that it correctly determined that, at least for regulatory purposes, the contract rate as amended by the various supplemental agreements is the currently effective rate. In No. 78-1071, we remand for an inquiry into possible mootness and a fuller statement of reasons.”

Ludlow Corp. v. Securities and Exchange Commission
· 1979-08-10
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

“Its decision is therefore affirmed.”

New York Shipping Ass'n, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission
· 1978-02-03
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

“Accordingly, the Commission's 1976 Order is affirmed and the petitions in Nos. 76-2024 and 76-2026 are denied.”

A historical record

Judge McGowan 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.