John Weld Peck II

How Judge Peck rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Position
district
Status
Elevated to a higher court
Served
1962–1966
Appointed by
John F. Kennedy (Democratic)
Commissioned
1962-04-12
Education
Miami University, Ohio (A.B., 1935); University of Cincinnati College of Law (J.D., 1938)
Signed orders read
24

How Judge Peck decides

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

What persuades

The court permitted examinations by multiple medical specialists when the alleged injuries fell into distinct areas of practice.

“where alleged injuries fall into two entirely separate areas of medical specialization, examinations by practitioners in such fields are held to be authorized under the Rule.”

The court resolved contractual ambiguity in favor of labor arbitration when the agreement used mandatory submission language.

“Doubts should be resolved in favor of coverage.”

A patent challenger failed where the most relevant prior art had already been considered and the expert proof did not establish obviousness.

“Defendants having failed to sustain the burden of establishing invalidity, the patent in suit is here determined to be valid.”

Procedural preferences

The court gave substantial weight to the selected forum and required the movant to demonstrate that convenience and justice favored transfer.

“[U]nless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”

When a process patent could not be investigated from a physical product, the court allowed an inspection and relied on a protective order to address commercial secrecy.

“The usual problems encountered where parties who are direct commercial competitors are at odds regarding secret processes are present, but these are susceptible to solution by protective order.”

Cautions

A proposed intervenor could not join a diversity action without independently satisfying complete-diversity and amount requirements.

“Applicant must therefore be able to establish both the jurisdictional amount and complete diversity of citizenship.”

A temporary administrative regulation left unreplaced for years could not support a later criminal prosecution.

“the regulation, Treasury Decision 6091, which forms the basis of the indictment herein has not been validly adopted and that it therefore cannot form the basis of a criminal prosecution.”

Signed rulings

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

Marshall v. Peters
· 1962-10-24
Motion for physical examination (defendant) Granted

“it is concluded that defendant’s motion to require the plaintiff to submit to physical examinations is well taken”

In re Engle
· 1963-06-13
Petition for writ of habeas corpus (petitioner) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be and it is hereby dismissed.”

In re the Dan Cohen Co.
· 1963-09-12
Petition for review of bankruptcy order (lessor) Granted

“the Order of the Referee in Bankruptcy entered May 23rd, 1963, should be and it is hereby reversed, and the cause remanded for further action consistent herewith.”

Burnett v. New York Central Railroad
· 1963-10-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the defendant’s motion to dismiss this action because the complaint fails to state a claim against this defendant upon which relief may be granted should be and it is hereby sustained and said action is dismissed”

Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co. v. United States
· 1964-05-20

A three-judge court resolved a submitted transportation-rate challenge through findings and conclusions rather than a separable party-motion outcome.

In re Johnson
· 1964-05-28
Petition for review of bankruptcy order (bankrupt) Granted

“the Order of the Referee of January 21st, 1964, should be and it is hereby reversed, and the matter is remanded to the Referee for further proceedings consistent herewith.”

Lodge No. 912 v. General Electric Co.
· 1964-06-05
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“the motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment should be and it is hereby granted”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the motion of defendant for summary judgment should be and it is hereby denied”

Getreu v. Armco Steel Corp.
· 1964-06-12
Petition for temporary injunction (petitioner) Denied

“the petition for an injunction under Section 10 (j) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, should be and it is hereby denied.”

Slapin v. Slapin
· 1964-07-09
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the motion to dismiss the complaint will be sustained.”

Hughes v. United States
· 1965-04-05

The court resolved a bench-tried tax-refund action through findings and conclusions; a trial motion was left undecided as unnecessary.

Utzinger v. United States
· 1965-04-13
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be sustained, and an entry sustaining the motion and entering judgment for the defendant may be presented.”

In re Hendren
· 1965-04-22
Petition for review of bankruptcy order (debtor) Granted

“the petition for review should be and it hereby is granted and sustained and the cause remanded to the Referee in Bankruptcy for further proceedings consistent herewith.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The reviewed decisions include labor arbitration, bankruptcy, civil procedure, patent, criminal, tax, tort, education, and transportation matters. No electronic records are available to quantify the tenure.

A historical record

Judge Peck 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.