William Ray Overton

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas district Retired 1987 · served 1979–1987 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 19 signed orders read

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

How Judge Overton decides

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

What persuades

He treated falsifiability and openness to revision as essential features of scientific reasoning.

“A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory.”

He required procedural safeguards capable of preventing wrongful seizure of legally exempt property.

“it is evident that the Arkansas statutes do not contain sufficient procedural safeguards designed to prevent erroneous seizures to satisfy due process”

He resisted reading an implied repeal into a statutory reorganization when Congress had not spoken expressly.

“It seems especially unlikely that Congress intended to repeal legislation so essential to national policy as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act without expressly saying so.”

Procedural preferences

He evaluated proposed classes with attention to whether certification would protect absent members, not merely advance the named plaintiff's case.

“the interests of the absent class members would not be served by certification of any class in this case.”

He required a party seeking arbitration to establish an agreement, arbitrable claims, and no waiver.

“To prevail on a motion to compel arbitration, a party must establish the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, arbitrable claims, and that no waiver of the right to arbitrate has occurred.”

He preferred relief that protected constitutional rights without creating an unnecessarily difficult supervisory role.

“the Court will exercise its discretion not to grant equitable relief because of the potential extreme difficulty in supervising such an injunction.”

Cautions

He would not permit late intervention after settlement when it would unfairly deprive a defendant of the settlement's benefit.

“the request is not timely and if granted would result in undue prejudice to the defendant.”

He distinguished between using an old event as evidence and obtaining relief on a stale claim.

“Certainly it is clear that the plaintiff may have no relief under Title VII for the allegedly discriminatory actions by the defendant in 1969 relating to the training of a male employee.”

Signed rulings

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

Uncle Ben's, Inc. v. Crowell
· 1980-01-17
Summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“The defendants’ motions for summary judgment are denied.”

Farrell v. United States
· 1980-01-23
Summary judgment (defendant United States) Denied

“Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be denied and plaintiffs’ motion for cross summary judgment on the issue will be granted.”

Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Granted
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiffs) Denied

“The Court is of the opinion that the Government’s position was not totally frivolous nor taken in bad faith and attorney’s fees will, accordingly, be denied.”

United States v. Oakley
· 1980-01-31
Conversion claim (plaintiff United States) Granted

“The defendants converted the crops to the extent payment was withheld and are liable to the government for the sum of $568.98 with interest thereon from the date or the conversion, January 4, 1978.”

Wild Cinemas of Little Rock, Inc. v. Bentley
· 1980-10-17
Declaratory judgment (plaintiff theater operator) Granted

“It is determined that a declaratory judgment should be granted in accordance with the analysis of the Act set out above.”

Permanent injunction (plaintiff theater operator) Denied

“Under these circumstances the Court will exercise its discretion not to grant equitable relief because of the potential extreme difficulty in supervising such an injunction.”

Preliminary injunction (plaintiff theater operator) Moot / procedural

“It is, therefore, ordered that the preliminary injunction entered in this cause September 12,1980, be dissolved effective October 23, 1980.”

Poinsett County Savings v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board
· 1980-12-29
Summary judgment (defendant Federal Home Loan Bank Board) Granted

“It is, therefore, ordered that defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment be, and are hereby, granted.”

Summary judgment (defendant Citizens Federal Savings and Loan Association) Granted
Back Door Records v. City of Jacksonville
· 1981-01-08
Permanent injunction (plaintiff retailers) Granted

“It is, therefore, ordered that each defendant and all those acting in concert or combination with them are hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing in any manner Jacksonville City Ordinance No. 594.”

Perkins v. City of West Helena
· 1981-04-10
Voting rights claim (plaintiffs) Denied

“For the reasons stated in this opinion, it is hereby ordered that the complaint be dismissed and the relief prayed for denied.”

McClure v. Valmac Industries, Inc.
· 1981-06-02
Motions to dismiss (defendant employer) Denied

“Although this motion to dismiss raises a number of salient points, the Court finds it inappropriate to grant any of the motion at this time.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant employer) Denied

“The Court is, therefore, unwilling to grant the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim.”

Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Denied

“Both motions will be denied.”

Motion for attorney fees (defendant) Denied
Motions to stay (defendant) Denied

“The defendant has also moved for a stay of all proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the Gunther case. This motion will also be denied.”

Burkhalter v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
· 1981-07-10
Motion to intervene (putative class members) Denied

“In summary, this Court finds that the request is not timely and if granted would result in undue prejudice to the defendant. Accordingly, the motion to intervene is denied.”

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
· 1982-01-05
Permanent injunction (plaintiffs) Granted

“An injunction will be entered permanently prohibiting enforcement of Act 590.”

Dunn v. Midwest Buslines, Inc.
· 1982-04-28
Class certification (plaintiff employee) Denied

“The motion for class certification is denied.”

Collins v. Lockhart
· 1982-05-28
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the petition seeking habeas relief is denied.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No case-level docket records are available for this tenure, so the profile makes no claim about caseload mix or case duration.

A historical record

Judge Overton 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.