Kristine Anne Gerhard Baker
How Judge Baker rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Baker
Kristine Gerhard Baker is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Baker received a commission on May 8, 2012.
Judge Baker's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Baker's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Baker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Kackley v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., Baker adopted the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and denied the pending summary judgment motion as moot.
“the Court adopts the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. No. 25). The Court denies as moot defendant AOIC's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No.13).”
In United States v. Laws, Baker granted the government’s reconsideration motion, reopened the suppression hearing for additional testimony, and then denied suppression after finding the interview was not custodial.
“For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Milton Laws, Jr.’s motion to suppress after reopening the hearing on the motion.”
In P.S. Products v. Activision Blizzard, Baker compared the actual products under the ordinary-observer test and found that no reasonable purchaser would mistake the defendants’ video game for the plaintiffs’ stun gun.
“No reasonable person would purchase defendants’ video game believing that they were purchasing plaintiffs’ stun gun.”
Cautions
In Reddix v. Arkansas Department of Workforce Services, Baker granted the agency’s summary judgment motion and dismissed Reddix’s claims with prejudice.
“the Court grants defendant Arkansas Department of Workforce Services' motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff Lee Reddix (Dkt. No. 10). Mr. Reddix's claims are dismissed with prejudice.”
In Deaton v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance, Baker found that letters seeking plan documents and referring to a possible future appeal did not amount to a timely administrative appeal.
“Under these circumstances and based on Reindl, the Court determines that Hartford reasonably could have construed the May letters as not providing adequate notice of an appeal or constituting an appeal but instead as mere requests for documents that Mr. Deaton’s ‘lawyer sought to review before determining whether to file an appeal in the future.’”
In Hilburn v. Lexicon, Baker held that the employee could not perform the crane-operator job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation; she granted the employer’s summary-judgment motion on the disability claims.
“no reasonable factfinder could find that Hilburn was capable of performing the essential functions of Crane Operator with or without reasonable accommodation,”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“USA's motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 33). ... Dunn's complaint is dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. No. 2).”
“Dunn's motion for summary judgment is denied (Dkt. No. 30).”
“the Court grants defendant Arkansas Department of Workforce Services’ motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff Lee Reddix (Dkt. No. 10). Mr. Reddix’s claims are dismissed with prejudice.”
“the Court adopts the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. No. 25). The Court denies as moot defendant AOIC's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No.13).”
“Because no genuine issue of material fact exists as to the reasonableness of Hartford’s determination that Mr. Deaton failed to exhaust timely his administrative remedies and that the time for doing so has passed, and because Hartford’s termination letter constituted an appealable denial, the Court grants Hartford’s motion and dismisses this action with prejudice.”
“For these reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted (Dkt. No. 24). Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice.”
“The government’s motion for reconsideration of Order granting motion to suppress is granted (Dkt. No. 184).”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Milton Laws, Jr.’s motion to suppress after reopening the hearing on the motion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies GISS’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 66).”
“The Court grants Dr. Douangkesone’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 39). Bledsoe’s claims against Dr. Douangkesone are dismissed with prejudice.”
“CPS’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. CPS’s motion for summary judgment as to Mid-Delta is granted as to the principal sum of $93,670.93. CPS’s motion for summary judgment, including its request for summary judgment as to claims against Mr. Hallum, is denied in all other respects.”
“The Court grants in part and denies in part the motion for summary judgment filed by the individual defendants (Dkt. No. 107). The Court grants the motion as to defendants Ella Taylor, Amy Barker, and Kathleen Maples and denies the motion as to defendants Dr. Hipolito Matos and Dr. Nader Peikar.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 37), and Mr. Johnson’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“the Court grants defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 23)”
“grants defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 30). This case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) for failure to prosecute.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed felony cases lasted roughly 1.3 years to more than three years, while the civil matters filed in 2017 took about 1.5 to three years to reach summary judgment. Some later civil cases were transferred or dismissed earlier; these observations do not describe the full docket.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 14 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 20 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 14 | 20 |
| Sep 2025 | 7 | 21 |
| Mar 2025 | 9 | 18 |
| Sep 2024 | 11 | 29 |
| Mar 2024 | 11 | 32 |
| Sep 2023 | 6 | 36 |
| Mar 2023 | 9 | 21 |
| Sep 2022 | 7 | 17 |
| Mar 2022 | 14 | 22 |
| Sep 2021 | 11 | 22 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 14 |
| Sep 2020 | 13 | 8 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, not for Judge Baker: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 726 | 10.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 373 | 12.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 338 | 7.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 2 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 13 | 30.9 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 726 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 787 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 995 | 12.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 894 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 845 | 11.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 848 | 10.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 878 | 10.5 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Baker with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Baker, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Baker's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace