Robert Edward Varner

United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama district Retired 2006 · served 1971–2006 Appointed by Richard Nixon (Republican) 29 signed orders read

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

How Judge Varner decides

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

What persuades

He treated the reasonableness of notice under the Uniform Commercial Code as a fact question unsuitable for summary judgment on a thin record.

“The question of what is ‘reasonable’ is a question of fact and should be decided by the jury after proper instructions.”

He required a false-claims pleading to describe the relationships and mechanism connecting the alleged conduct to federal funds.

“the Plaintiff has set forth with specificity the legal relationship between FEMA, the Temporary Housing Program and the Defendants and the means by which the fraudulent claims could have harmed the United States government.”

Procedural preferences

He favored factual development over threshold disposition when an amended complaint could state a proper claim.

“Both Plaintiff and Defendants should have their day in Court if a proper cause of action can be stated against the Defendants.”

He treated remand as mandatory when the original removal was improvident and jurisdiction was absent.

“Since this Court’s finding is that the original removal was improvident, remand of this action is compelled by § 1447(c)”

Cautions

He warned that notice pleading still requires enough information to identify the claim and its grounds.

“the rules require the complaint to give the defendant ‘fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’”

Signed rulings

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

Warren v. General Motors Corp.
· 1971-07-26
Motion for new trial (plaintiffs) Denied

“Plaintiffs’ Motion for a New Trial should be, and the same is hereby, denied.”

Covington County Bank v. R. J. Allen & Associates, Inc.
· 1975-01-31
Motions to dismiss (federal agency) Granted

“said Defendant’s motion to dismiss be, and the same is hereby, granted and the Defendant, Securities and Exchange Commission, is dismissed as a party Defendant to this cause of action.”

United States v. Robert
· 1974-03-27
Motion to dismiss indictment (defendants) Denied

“the Defendants’ motion to dismiss be, and the same is hereby denied.”

United States v. Killough
· 1986-01-03
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“the motions to dismiss should be, and they hereby are, denied.”

Wright v. Alabama Army National Guard
· 1977-07-07
Motions to dismiss (government) Granted

“the United States’ motion to dismiss be, and the same is hereby, granted, and the above-styled cause is hereby dismissed”

Taylor v. Alabama High School Athletic Association
· 1972-01-07
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss this proceeding on the ground that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted should be, and the same is hereby, granted”

James v. Murphy
· 1975-06-25
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted in part

“said motion to dismiss be, and the same is hereby, granted with respect to Plaintiff’s claim No. II, III and IV.”

Alabama Exchange Bank v. United States
· 1974-04-12
Motions to dismiss (government) Denied

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss filed herein March 25, 1974, be, and the same is hereby denied.”

Holmes v. Wallace
· 1976-02-12
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“said motion, to dismiss be, and the same is hereby, granted, and the above-styled cause is hereby dismissed”

Robinson v. Pottinger
· 1974-05-31
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“the motion to dismiss of the Defendants Saxbe and Pottinger be, and the same is hereby, denied.”

Frank v. Mracek
· 1973-01-15
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted in part

“the complaints against Drs. James Mracek and William V. Chambless and against Glen Thompson be, and they are hereby, dismissed with leave within 20 days hereof to the Plaintiff to refile a proper complaint against said Defendants.”

Shapex Corp. v. United States
· 1985-06-24
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“Therefore, Defendants House and Knight are due to be dismissed from this cause.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The located writings span civil procedure, jurisdiction, civil rights, criminal cases, insurance, federal lending, habeas corpus, employment, and administrative review. They do not establish the distribution of Varner's full caseload.

A historical record

Judge Varner 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.