Thomas Virgil Pittman

United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama district Retired 1970 · served 1966–1970 Appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic) 33 signed orders read

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

How Judge Pittman decides

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

What persuades

He enforced contract language against the party that drafted an ambiguity.

“any ambiguity in the language of a contract shall be construed more strongly against the party preparing the contract.”

He treated a single injury arising from interlocked transactions as one cause of action for removal analysis.

“the claim against the petitioner for removal is not ‘separate and independent’ from those asserted against the other”

Procedural preferences

He required a new-trial request based on newly discovered evidence to explain both diligence and the proposed proof.

“The petition does not aver facts which reasonably show why this information was not discovered until after the trial nor who would so testify.”

He considered whether delay was purposeful or oppressive in light of the court's actual criminal docket.

“The delay is a regrettable incident to a burdensome court docket.”

Cautions

He treated unexplained, prejudicial delay in seeking extraordinary post-conviction relief as a waiver.

“Petitioner offers no explanation for the undue delay.”

Signed rulings

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

McFadden v. Avco Corporation
· 1967-07-21
Motion to quash subpoena (government witness) Denied

“Mr. Gaines’ Motion to Quash, Etc. is denied and the documents called for by the subpoena are ordered produced”

Motions to compel (defendant) Granted in part

“Paragraph 3 of the Motion is granted with the limitation that it applies only to military or U. S. Government personnel.”

Davis Constructors & Engineers, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
· 1968-12-31
Insurance duty to defend claim (contractor) Denied

“This court holds that Hartford is not required to defend Davis.”

Insurance indemnity claim (contractor) Granted

“Having decided that defendant Hartford is obligated to plaintiff Davis for any amount Davis might be required to pay as a result of the state court suit”

Insurance contribution claim (insurer) Denied

“Hence, the loss, if any, must be that of Hartford alone.”

Reynolds v. Alabama
· 1967-12-02
Motions to remand (state) Granted

“An order of remand has been entered in accordance with this opinion.”

United States v. Richardson
· 1968-04-23
Motion to dismiss indictment (defendants) Denied

“the court concludes that the Marchetti, Grosso, and Haynes decisions do not require the dismissal of these indictments.”

Rochester v. United States
· 1968-09-12
Motion to vacate sentence (petitioner) Denied

“It is the judgment, order and decree of this court that the petition be and the same is hereby denied.”

Hogue v. Auburtin
· 1968-10-11
Request for preliminary injunction (plaintiffs) Granted

“The defendant Probate Judge, 0. J. Barton, is enjoined from:”

Shewmake v. Montgomery Lodge No. 596
· 1968-08-28
Interpleader lien allocation (interpleader plaintiffs) Granted in part

“the disposition of the claimed attorneys’ fees for the bond holders, and other matters relating to the By-Pass property are hereby remanded to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, State of Alabama, for final disposition.”

Winters v. Hale
· 1968-03-22
Motions to remand (plaintiffs) Granted

“An order of remand has been entered in accordance with this opinion.”

United States v. Glass
· 1969-04-10
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“The plaintiff is therefore entitled to a summary judgment in its favor.”

Wright v. Patterson
· 1968-12-31
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Summary Judgment be and is hereby entered in favor of each defendant in each case respectively.”

Dickerson v. Simpson
· 1969-02-24
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the petition be and is hereby denied.”

Radcliff Materials, Inc. v. Stuyvesant Insurance
· 1968-12-30
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“defendant’s motion for Summary Judgment is hereby denied.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The located writings span criminal post-conviction relief, civil rights, voting, school desegregation, removal, insurance, forfeiture, and Social Security review. They do not establish the distribution of Pittman's full caseload.

A historical record

Judge Pittman 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.