John Elvis Miller
Judge Miller no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Miller decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He treated the state workers’ compensation remedy as exclusive where it governed the employment injury.
“this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain her claim for damages for the alleged negligence of her employer, the defendant.”
A single equipment transaction tied to Arkansas was enough to support personal jurisdiction over the resulting controversy.
“This single transaction is sufficient under the McGee case to render it subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State with respect to any controversy growing out of those goods.”
Procedural preferences
An opponent who did not answer supported summary-judgment materials with affidavits or discovery evidence could not rely on an unsupported contrary contention.
“having failed to comply with the rule by supplying affidavits or other documents in support of their contention, their contention cannot be considered in determining the adequacy of the motion for summary judgment.”
He viewed summary judgment as appropriate when the trial record would necessarily require a directed verdict.
“We have consistently held that summary judgment is appropriate where, had the case gone to trial, a directed verdict would have been required.”
Cautions
He would not decide the legal effect of a release that had not been attached or properly pleaded with its surrounding facts.
“Should the release come before the court upon a proper pleading, and should the facts surrounding it be properly presented, a ruling can be made relative to its legal effect, if any.”
He denied a further amendment where the claim was time-barred and the proposed pleading would prolong concluded litigation.
“Justice does not require the court to permit the plaintiff to file the proffered amendment, but rather requires that this litigation cease”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The motion to dismiss filed by Quisenberry Mills, Inc., should be overruled and an order to that effect is being entered.”
“Therefore, the motion of defendant for summary judgment should be granted.”
“Therefore, the motion of defendant for summary judgment should be granted, and the motion of plaintiff for leave to file a second amended complaint should be denied, and an order in accordance herewith is being entered today.”
“Accordingly the motion to dismiss must be overruled.”
“Therefore, an order is being entered today sustaining defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint and amendment thereto.”
“For the reasons above stated, the court is of the opinion that the motion to remand should be granted, and an order is being entered today remanding the case to the Circuit Court of Hot Spring County whence it was removed.”
“Therefore, in accordance with the above an order is being entered today denying Erie’s motion to quash service on it and overruling Erie’s motion to dismiss.”
“Therefore, judgment is being entered today sustaining the motion of plaintiff and for the recovery by plaintiff of the sum of $10,531.80, with interest at 6 percent from May 25, 1965, until paid, together with the sum of $1,263.82 as penalty, and a reasonable attorney’s fee in the sum of $2,500.00 to be taxed as costs.”
“The judgment shall further provide that the motion of defendant for a continuance is denied and overruled, and that all costs be taxed against defendant.”
“Judgment is being entered today granting the motion of defendant for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint of plaintiffs.”
“Therefore, the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment should be denied, and the motion of defendant for judgment on the pleadings should be granted and the complaint of plaintiff dismissed.”
“In accordance with the above, a judgment is being entered today sustaining the motion of defendant for summary judgment, sustaining the objections of defendant to the requests for admissions, and dismissing the complaint of the plaintiffs.”
“the court is convinced that the plaintiff Richard L. Wommack fully understood the applicability of the policy, and therefore is of the opinion that the motion of defendant should be granted and that it has no liability for payment of any sums in satisfaction of any judgment rendered in the suits pending against the plaintiffs until such times as the plaintiff Richard Wommack has incurred a net loss in excess of $100,000 person, $300,000 per accident, and $10,-000 property damage, and that the motion of plaintiffs should be overruled and denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed decisions span insurance, jurisdiction, removal, contracts, employment injury, taxation, property, transportation, and civil procedure. This dispositive-weighted publication sample cannot support a career-wide caseload estimate.
A historical record
Judge Miller 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.