William Huntington Kirkpatrick

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania district Deceased · served 1927–1970 Appointed by Calvin Coolidge (Republican) 20 signed orders read

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

How Judge Kirkpatrick decides

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

What persuades

Kirkpatrick declined summary judgment where an undisputed but underdeveloped record did not reveal the parties' actual commercial relationship.

“Summary judgment is inappropriate, not only where a material issue of fact exists, but also where the facts of record on which the motion is based, even though not in dispute, are insufficiently developed to warrant judgment.”

Procedural preferences

He treated the scope of labor arbitration as a contractual question for the court before sending any merits issue to the arbitrator.

“I cannot find that the parties have agreed to arbitrate this matter.”

Cautions

He sometimes restored a case despite counsel's unexplained procedural failure, but conditioned relief on reimbursing the opposing party's resulting expense.

“Therefore, I think that justice will be served by granting relief on terms.”

Signed rulings

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

Sherman v. Weber Dental Manufacturing Company
· 1968-05-22
Summary judgment (plaintiff Sherman partnership) Denied

“The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied as to all three of its claims.”

A/S Acadia v. Curtis Bay Towing Co.
· 1967-05-09
Motion for partial summary judgment (libellant A/S Acadia) Granted

“I conclude that this libellant is not bound by the pilotage clause contained in the contract between Curtis Bay and the impleaded respondent, and direct that that issue be not further litigated.”

Doane v. Travelers Insurance Company
· 1966-12-30
Motions to strike (plaintiff Doane) Granted

“The motion to strike is granted.”

Rubel v. Grossman
· 1964-07-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant Grossman) Granted

“The complaint will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.”

United States v. Radio Corp.
· 1960-06-27
Motion to intervene (Westinghouse Electric Corporation) Denied

“The motion is denied.”

Wilson v. Armstrong
· 1965-04-22
Motion to vacate service (defendant Armstrong) Granted

“It is ordered that the service be set aside.”

Continental Can Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal, Inc.
· 1965-10-29
Motion to suppress deposition (plaintiff Continental Can Company) Denied

“The motion to suppress must, therefore, be denied.”

Summary judgment (defendant Crown Cork & Seal, Inc.) Denied

“The motion must be denied. I am of the opinion that there are disputed issues of fact concerning the interpretation of the patent and its place in the art.”

Hutton v. Fisher
· 1964-02-05
Motion to vacate default judgment (defendants Joseph Fisher, Florence Fisher, and Howard Fisher) Granted in part

“The motion to vacate the default and the judgment against Joseph Fisher and Florence Fisher is denied and granted as to Howard Fisher.”

Keenan v. Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia
· 1966-11-28
Motions to dismiss (three defendant union bodies) Granted in part

“The action, therefore, will be dismissed as to the Brotherhood. In view of the above conclusions and of the commingling of the two causes of action pleaded, I will be compelled to dismiss the entire action unless the plaintiff severs his two causes of action and elects to proceed solely upon the charge that his trial by the Council was unfair. An order, therefore, may be submitted dismissing the action unless within fifteen days the plaintiff, either by an amended complaint or by stipulation, eliminates from the action any claim of privilege to slander union members or any allegation which, directly or by necessary inference, attacks the validity of any part of the Brotherhood’s constitution or general laws.”

Sicilia v. Tassell
· 1958-05-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant Tassell) Denied

“The motion is denied.”

Dyotherm Corp. v. Turbo Machine Co.
· 1966-01-03
Motion for judgment on counterclaim (defendant Turbo Machine Company) Denied

“An order denying the defendant’s motion for judgment on the counterclaim.”

Motion to vacate dismissal (plaintiff Dyotherm Corporation) Granted

“An order vacating the judgment against the plaintiff for want of prosecution, this order, however, to be conditional upon the plaintiff’s paying to the defendant the expenses incurred by the defendant in appearing in court on October 5 *373and 6, 1965, including a reasonable counsel fee proportioned to counsel’s time and effort in such appearance.”

Motion for leave to file reply (plaintiff Dyotherm Corporation) Granted

“An order permitting the plaintiff to file a reply to the counterclaim within ten days from the date of entry.”

Motion for attorneys fees (defendant Turbo Machine Company) Denied

“An order denying the defendant’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees, this denial, however, not to affect the award fixed as a condition for the vacation of the judgment for want of prosecution.”

Leesona Corp. v. Seigle
· 1968-02-06
Summary judgment (plaintiff Leesona Corporation) Granted

“The court finds the defendant’s patent invalid. The defendant’s counterclaim is dismissed. Judgment accordingly.”

Summary judgment (defendant Seigle) Denied

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

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

A historical record

Judge Kirkpatrick 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.