John William Murphy
Judge Murphy no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Murphy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Murphy treated summary judgment as a question of whether a genuine factual issue existed, not an occasion to resolve disputed facts.
“In passing upon such a motion it is no part of the court’s function to decide issues of fact but solely to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried. All doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact must be resolved against the party moving for summary judgment. Toebelman v. Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co., 3 Cir.1942, 130 F.2d 1016, 1018.”
He confined review of disability determinations to whether the administrative record supplied a reasonable legal and evidentiary basis.
“This is not a trial de novo. Hobby v. Hodges, 10 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 754, 757.”
Procedural preferences
Murphy evaluated transfer requests through the practical convenience of both sides, witnesses, and the administration of justice.
“The ultimate inquiry is where trial will best serve the convenience of the parties, the witnesses and the ends of justice; to find that forum in which inconveniences of all parties and witnesses may be at an irreducible minimum.”
He resisted using a bill of particulars to force advance disclosure of the government's witnesses and proof.
“Defendant’s request that the government be required to ‘ * * * state the identity of witnesses or availability of other evidence, if any, as to the intent of the defendant * * * is denied. The weight of authority is against requiring the government to furnish in such cases the names of witnesses or the evidence upon which it will rely at the trial. United States v. Brennan, D.C.D.Minn.1955, 134 F.Supp. 42, at pages 52, 53; United States v. General Petroleum Corp. of Cal., D.C.S.D.Cal.1940, 33 F.Supp. 95, at page 99; Wong Tai v. United States, 1927, 273 U.S. 77, at page 82, 47 S.Ct. 300, 71 L. Ed. 545, and cases cited Note 1 supra.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment, for judgment of acquittal and new trial will therefore be denied in an order filed herewith.”
“Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal will be denied.”
“Defendant’s motion for new trial will therefore be denied in an order filed herewith.”
“United States v. Doshen, 3 Cir., 1943, 133 F.2d 757, at page 760, Note 3, teaches that any false statement made in the course of a naturalization proceeding constitutes fraud upon .the government, and see United States v. Saracino, 3 Cir., 1930, 43 F.2d 76; Rein v. United States, supra, 69 F.2d at page 207; United States v. Kessler, supra, 213 F.2d at pages 55, 58, adds that the statement must not only be false but made with knowledge of the falsity and in a wilful and deliberate attempt to deceive the government. And see United States v. Anastasio, 3 Cir., 1955, 226 F.2d 912, at page 916, certiorari denied 1956, 351 U.S. 931, 76 S.Ct. 787, 100 L.Ed. 1460, ‘The premise of a denaturalization action is fraud or illegality * * * practiced by the defendant in the naturalization proceeding which deceived the government or the court into granting citizenship.’ Although the government’s burden is a heavy one and they must prove their case by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence which does not leave the issue of fraud or illegality in doubt, Schneiderman v. United States, 1943, 320 U.S. 118, 158, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796; Baumgartner v. United States, supra; Knauer v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 654, 66 S.Ct. 1304, 90 L.Ed. 1500; United States v. Montalbano, supra, 236 F.2d at page 758, from a study and appraisal of the whole record we are of the opinion, and find as a fact, that defendant deliberately and wilfully concealed and misrepresented material facts for the purpose of deceiving the government and the court; that the order admitting him to citizenship and the Certificate of Naturalization issued to him were procured by such concealment and misrepresentation; and conclude as a matter of law that such order admitting him to citizenship should be revoked and set aside and the Certificate of Naturalization issued to him cancelled.”
“149 Pa.Super. at page 352, 27 A.2d 261; Garland v. Craven, supra, 156 Pa.Super. at page 355, 41 A.2d 140; Equitable Life Ins. Co. of Iowa v. Cummings, 3 Cir., 1925, 4 F.2d 794, 796; First National Bank v. Gable, supra, 98 F.Supp. at pages 633, 634; General American Life Ins. Co. v. Sutch, DC.W.D.Pa.1939, 31 F. Supp. 192. An order directing payment to her in the sum of $10,000 will follow.”
“An order denying defendant’s motions, will be filed herewith.”
“An order of transfer will be filed herewith.”
“Judgment will be entered’ for the defendant.”
“An order denying defendants’ motion will be filed herewith.”
“This is a hard case. There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the findings of the Administrator. We have no alternative but to affirm.”
“An order denying defendants’ motion will be filed herewith.”
“Defendant’s motions will be denied.”
“*435The lack of merit in defendant’s allegations are amply demonstrated by the petition itself and by the record. Finding no merit therein, defendant's petition must be denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The selected writings include criminal, labor, insurance, tax, disability, venue, trademark, and jurisdictional disputes. They do not establish the distribution of Murphy's full caseload.
A historical record
Judge Murphy 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.