Henry Woods

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas district Retired 2002 · served 1980–2002 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 13 signed orders read

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

How Judge Woods decides

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

What persuades

He treated a jury verdict as controlling when the evidence allowed a reasonable view of the facts.

“The jury reached a reasonable and permissible verdict.”

He viewed the judicial role as applying enacted and controlling law even when its results seemed inequitable.

“It is the duty of trial judges to apply the law as it has been established by the Congress (in the case of the Warsaw Convention), state legislatures, and higher courts (in the case of the Floyd decision).”

He treated the substance of a driver-carrier relationship as more important than labels used for employment or tax purposes.

“Peter Estes was, as a matter of law, the agent of Manning Services, Inc. at the time of the accident, giving rise to this lawsuit.”

Procedural preferences

He enforced discovery cutoffs to prevent late disputes after parties had ample time to develop the record.

“The express reason for a discovery cutoff is to avoid last minute discovery disputes, the very situation now before the Court.”

He required the nonmoving party to identify concrete record evidence rather than rest on allegations.

“A party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the bare allegations in the complaint, but must set forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial.”

He distinguished threshold physical injury from the full range of damages recoverable after liability was established.

“Even though any physical injury should permit a plaintiff to cross the liability threshold and access all available remedies in Warsaw cases, in this case the plaintiff's injuries were a proximate cause of her mental injuries.”

Cautions

He would not allow a late amendment that added parties who had received no prior notice of the suit.

“it is too late to permit an amendment adding defendants who, heretofore, have had no notice of the suit.”

He treated Arkansas clemency as discretionary grace rather than a protected entitlement.

“It is purely a matter of grace.”

Signed rulings

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

Williams v. Little Rock Municipal Water Works
· 1993-04-08
Motion to continue (plaintiff) Denied

“The motion to continue is denied.”

Motion to amend complaint (plaintiff) Denied

“The motion to amend the complaint is also denied.”

Motion to compel discovery (plaintiff) Denied

“The motion to compel discovery is denied.”

Summary judgment (defendant municipal water utility) Granted

“The defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted; the defendant’s motion for sanctions is taken under advisement; the plaintiffs motion to continue is denied; the plaintiffs motion to amend is denied; the plaintiffs motion to compel and shorten time is denied.”

Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“The Clerk is directed to remove from the list of pending motions plaintiffs motion for reconsideration and motion to withdraw, because those motions are now moot.”

Motion to withdraw (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Williams v. Burlington Northern Railroad
· 1994-04-14
Summary judgment (defendant railroad) Granted in part

“Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment (Docs. # 8 and # 10) is granted in part and denied in part, this 14th day of April, 1994.”

Boyland v. General Novelty, Inc.
· 1995-05-09
Motions to dismiss (defendant supervisor) Granted

“Accordingly, defendant Doggett’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is hereby granted.”

Alexander v. Pathfinder, Inc.
· 1995-10-27
Civil rights claim (plaintiff guardian) Denied

“Accordingly, on the grounds of issue and claim preclusion, this case must be, and hereby is, dismissed. Relief sought is denied.”

Temporary restraining order (plaintiff guardian) Moot / procedural

“The Temporary Restraining Order is hereby dissolved.”

Fleet Tire Service of North Little Rock, Inc. v. Oliver Rubber Co.
· 1996-11-25
Motion to dismiss or stay pending arbitration (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss or Stay Pending Arbitration is denied.”

Holder v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
· 1997-12-01
Summary judgment (defendant employer) Granted

“Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and this case is dismissed with prejudice this 26th day of November, 1997.”

Reginelli v. Motion Industries, Inc.
· 1997-12-19
Motion for judgment as matter of law (defendant employer) Denied

“Accordingly, the defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the alternative for New Trial, is denied.”

Motion for new trial (defendant employer) Denied
Motion for equitable relief and judgment (plaintiff employee) Granted

“The plaintiffs Motion for Equitable Relief and Judgment is granted.”

Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff employee) Granted

“In addition, the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable costs and attorney’s fees.”

Lung v. MANNING SERVICES, INC.
· 1998-05-12
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, the plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted.”

Maddox v. American Airlines, Inc.
· 2000-09-25
Motion to amend judgment (plaintiff passenger) Granted in part

“In summary, Maddox’s motion to amend is granted in one respect; American’s motion to alter or amend is granted.”

Motion to amend judgment (defendant airline) Granted
In Re Air Crash at Little Rock, Ark., on 6/1/1999
· 2000-10-27
Motion for judgment as matter of law (defendant airline) Denied

“Accordingly, judgment will be entered on the jury's verdict.”

Pioneer Nursing & Rehab Center, Inc. v. United of Omaha Life Insurance
· 2001-02-28
Summary judgment (plaintiff nursing facility) Granted

“Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted.”

Summary judgment (defendant insurer) Denied

“The defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied, this 28th day of February, 2001.”

Bulloch v. American Airlines, Inc.
· 2001-08-22
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“While plaintiffs argument has some superficial appeal, since American has its principal place of business in Texas, the motion must be denied for the following reasons.”

Summary judgment (defendant airline) Granted

“Based on the above authorities, it is also clear that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be granted, and this case must be dismissed.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 94 days (N = 16).

The twenty located historical dockets include government civil actions, a Social Security appeal, and other civil matters. Because most lack nature-of-suit labels and the result is an archival slice rather than a complete census, the profile makes no broader caseload-mix claim.

A historical record

Judge Woods 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.