George Austin Welsh

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania district Deceased · served 1932–1970 Appointed by Herbert Hoover (Republican) 23 signed orders read

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

How Judge Welsh decides

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

What persuades

Welsh treated allegations of primary and secondary liability as sufficient to preserve an indemnity claim at the pleading stage.

“The sole question presented is: ‘Do the allegations of the third-party complaint set forth in subdivision 1 hereof show a claim upon which indemnity can be granted?’ We think they do.”

Procedural preferences

He required a formal production motion before adjudicating whether the requested discovery was supported by good cause.

“The feeling of this Court is that the merits of libellant’s argument should not be determined here, but should await the filing of the formal motion under Rule 32, at which time the respondent will have an opportunity to prepare a defense to such a motion if it so chooses.”

Cautions

He described preliminary injunctions as drastic relief reserved for clear cases and demanded proof of probable irreparable injury.

“It is necessarily drastic in its nature and should be exercised with great care and caution and only in clear cases.”

Signed rulings

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

Lieginger v. Wilson Lines, Inc.
· 1956-05-18
Objection to interrogatory answer (libellant) Moot / procedural

“For views expressed herein libellant’s objection to respondent’s answer to interrogatory No. 3 will be dismissed.”

Haskell v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.
· 1956-06-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant Philadelphia Transportation Company) Denied

“We do not think that under such circumstances a dismissal of the action is required.”

Sullivan v. United States
· 1956-05-11
Motions to dismiss (United States) Granted

“Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.”

Lieginger v. Wilson Lines, Inc.
· 1956-10-01
Motion to compel production (libellant Lieginger) Denied

“Hence, good cause therefor not having been shown libellant’s motion to produce statements for inspection and copying purposes will be denied.”

United States v. Raefsky
· 1956-06-26
Motion to join third party (partnership and individual defendants) Granted

“This Court felt the proposed third-party complaints were proper under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 14, 28 U.S. C.A. and accordingly granted said motions.”

Motion to dismiss counterclaims (United States) Granted

“There being no claim by the United States against the corporation and counterclaimant, we conclude the counterclaims filed by the corporation herein are improper and should be dismissed.”

Tannenbaum v. Walker
· 1954-10-08
Motion for production (defendant Sam Charen) Granted

“The sole question presented is: ‘Do the above facts meet the “good cause” requirement of Rule 34?’ We think they do.”

Thomas v. United States
· 1954-06-23
Motions to dismiss (United States) Granted

“Thus, it is apparent that the present suit cannot be maintained and respondent’s motion to dismiss same will be granted.”

O'Connor v. Alan Wood Steel Co.
· 1957-02-07
Motions to dismiss (third-party defendant F. E. Smith, Inc.) Denied

“The instant motion will accordingly be denied.”

Muzak Corp. v. Muse-Art Corp.
· 1954-05-25
Motion to compel deposition (plaintiff Muzak Corporation) Granted

“The motion is accordingly granted.”

Murphy v. Arrow Steamship Co.
· 1954-07-23
Motion to dismiss or set aside service (Arrow Steamship Company, Inc.) Denied

“Accordingly, the motion of defendant-respondent to dismiss or to set aside service of process is denied.”

John Creticos Co. v. McGinnes
· 1961-06-26
Summary judgment (defendant district director) Denied

“For the reasons expressed herein, defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be denied.”

Vaci v. Swedish American Line
· 1961-12-15
Exceptive allegation to dismiss (Swedish American Line) Granted

“For reasons appearing herein, the within libel will be dismissed and judgment will be entered in favor of the respondent.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No electronic case-level docket exists for Welsh's tenure. The profile therefore makes no claim about complete caseload mix, duration, administrative dispositions, or motion timing.

A historical record

Judge Welsh 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.