Elbert Bertram Haltom Jr.
Judge Haltom no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Haltom decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He left evaluation of a higher court’s likelihood of Supreme Court review to the appellate court or the Supreme Court.
“it is not an appropriate function for this Court to pass on the likelihood that the ruling of a higher court will be accepted for review by the Supreme Court.”
He treated conduct requiring no medical skill as intentional abuse outside professional-liability coverage.
“They amount, Dr. Henderson concludes and states in his affidavit, to no more than intentional sexual abuse of the young females.”
He set aside agency action after finding its principal witness lacked an independent recollection of the alleged violations.
“the questioned administrative action of FNS against Sharifi is therefore clearly invalid.”
He required the employee to prove that the employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reason was a pretext.
“the defendant had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring plaintiff at its Reclamation Plant and plaintiff thereafter failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reason offered by defendant was not its true reason but was a pretext for discrimination.”
Procedural preferences
He treated removal jurisdiction as strictly dependent on congressional authorization.
“The right to remove a case from a state to a federal court is purely statutory and therefore is entirely dependent on the will of Congress.”
He independently examined subject-matter jurisdiction even when no party had moved to dismiss.
“this Court has an independent duty to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction.”
A defendant that delayed removal while challenging a naming defect in state court proceeded at its own risk.
“A defendant in these stated circumstances who desires to remove the case to federal court yet procedurally attacks in state court the failure of the plaintiff to correctly name the defendant and holds its removal effort in abeyance until the defendant is correctly identified and designated by amended complaint does so at its peril”
He recognized broad trial-court discretion to tailor discovery protective orders to demonstrated good cause.
“the unique character of the discovery process requires that the trial court have substantial latitude to fashion [discovery] protective orders”
Cautions
He applied equity, comity, and federalism as continuing restraints on requests to enjoin state proceedings.
“principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a federal court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding.”
He treated clear statutory language as conclusive absent a clearly stated contrary legislative intent.
“Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must be regarded as conclusive.”
He held a responsible corporate officer to the consequences of possessing authority over unpaid trust-fund taxes.
“He cannot now avoid the consequences.”
He started the removal clock when the defendant received a written paper establishing removability, not from an earlier oral notice.
“the 30-day removal clock begins to run upon ‘receipt by the Defendant ... of a copy of [a] paper’ indicating that the case has become removable”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff’s motion of entry of order staying dismissal of this case is due to be dismissed for the reason that this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief requested.”
“the decision of the bankruptcy judge is hereby REVERSED.”
“this action was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction. An appropriate order of remand will therefore be entered.”
“defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims herein asserted by plaintiffs against defendant be and the same hereby is GRANTED and ENTERED”
“defendant’s motion for summary judgment in its favor with respect to all claims asserted by plaintiffs herein is hereby GRANTED and ENTERED”
“both actions will be dismissed by separate order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“ST. PAUL’S motion for full summary judgment in the above entitled civil action is due to be granted”
“the motion of plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for partial summary judgment in its favor in this action on the issue of whether the government had probable cause to seize defendant real property situated in Cullman County, Alabama, be and the same hereby is GRANTED”
“there was reasonable cause for the seizure of the defendant property”
“forfeiture action be and the same hereby is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“An appropriate order will be entered dismissing the above entitled civil action”
“granting plaintiff’s motion to remand and remanding this case to the state court from which it was removed”
“the questioned administrative action in issue in this case by FNS against Antoney Kamvar Sharifi d/b/a Sav-U-Foods is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE in its entirety”
“the defendant Food and Nutrition Service of the United States Department of Agriculture is hereby permanently ENJOINED and RESTRAINED”
“An appropriate order will be entered denying plaintiffs’ Rule 59(b) motion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1802 days (N = 20).
The twenty located assigned cases were all terminated and included civil-rights, employment, insurance, contract, and personal-liability matters. This limited case-level sample supports only a subject-mix and duration description.
A historical record
Judge Haltom 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.