Arthur Daniel Healey
How Judge Healey decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Healey applied a liberal amendment rule when the intended defendant had notice from the beginning and the mistake was one of naming rather than identity.
“To hold otherwise would be unfair to the plaintiff and would allow the defendant to avoid its rightful obligation through a technical error on the part of plaintiff’s counsel”
Healey allowed a pleading amendment after an intervening Supreme Court decision created a defense that the party could not reasonably have anticipated earlier.
“The defendant could not reasonably be expected to anticipate the holding in the Sola case, and consequently was justified in failing to attack the validity of the patents in its original answer.”
Procedural preferences
Healey narrowed discovery to the employee's work and the period actually placed at issue, requiring answers where the information was relevant and limiting requests that swept more broadly.
“Number 8 should be answered only insofar as it applies to the period covered by the complaint.”
Healey separated a counterclaim from a statutory reemployment action when trying them together would defeat Congress's direction for a speedy hearing.
“A separate trial is to be had on petitioner’s complaint and on respondent’s counterclaim.”
Cautions
Healey treated statutory review procedures as the proper route when they provided an adequate opportunity to challenge an agency's final action.
“the complainant has not stated a case entitling it to injunctive relief. Its rights are amply protected by the procedural provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.”
Healey enforced the tax statute as written and left objections to its fairness to the legislative branch.
“If the statute is unfair in its application, the remedy lies with Congress, not with the Courts.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to proceed against the proper parties.”
“I conclude, therefore, that the libellant’s motion for entry of the proposed decree should be granted.”
“The demurrers filed by the several defendants are overruled.”
“The government shall furnish the information hereby ordered within 30 days.”
“The motions of defendants Mystic Terminal Company and Berwind-White Coal Mining Company to dismiss the indictment as against them are hereby denied.”
“Thus the defendant is entitled to a summary judgment in its favor on the second ground set forth in its motion as well as on the first ground set forth therein.”
“Consequently, judgment will be ordered for the plaintiff in the amount of $275 single damages, as stipulated by the parties.”
“The defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“The motion to dismiss must be allowed.”
“The Clerk will prepare an order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
“The plaintiff’s motion is, therefore, denied.”
“Numbers 19 and 20 are too broad in scope and defendant should not be required to answer them. Number 21 should be answered.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No case-level docket record was returned for Healey's tenure. The profile therefore makes no claim about caseload mix, case duration, administrative dispositions, or motion timing.
Put Judge Healey's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Healey actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Healey's own signed orders and cites them.