Wade Brorby

How Judge Brorby rules, drawn from 40 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
1988-02-17
Education
University of Wyoming (B.S., 1956); University of Wyoming College of Law (J.D., 1958)
Signed orders read
40

How Judge Brorby decides

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

What persuades

After the Supreme Court's decision in Kimel, an ADEA claim could not proceed against a state-university employer.

“Having carefully considered Ms. Migneault’s ADEA claim in light of Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents,1 we conclude she cannot maintain her suit against the University, a state employer.”

An inability to perform one particular job did not substantially limit the major life activity of working under the ADA.

“The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute *685a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.”

Procedural preferences

The court certified potentially dispositive questions of unsettled state law when no controlling state authority existed.

“The answers to these questions may be determinative of issues in a case now pending in this court, and it appears that there is no controlling Montana authority.”

A transferee court may revisit a transferor court's prior ruling to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

“a ‘prior ruling of a transferor court . . . may be reconsidered when,’ among other things, ‘a clear error has been committed or to prevent manifest injustice.’”

Cautions

An argument omitted in the district court and presented without supporting authority was not considered on appeal.

“Ms. Fite admits that she did not raise this issue in the district court, and she cites no authority to support it. We therefore decline to address the issue.”

Signed rulings

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

Allen v. United States (C.I.R.)
68 F.3d 483 · 1995-10-17
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff)) Denied

“The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED.”

Stanley v. Callahan
124 F.3d 217 · 1997-09-03
Appeal (appellant (claimant)) Denied

“We AFFIRM the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma for substantially the same reasons stated in the order of the magistrate judge, a copy thereof being attached hereto.”

United States v. Anderson
133 F.3d 933 · 1998-01-12
Appeal (appellant (defendant)) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Anderson’s appeal fails and the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.”

Lane v. Nye
149 F.3d 1190 · 1998-06-19
Appeal (appellant (petitioner)) Denied

“Consequently, we DENY Mr. Lane's application for a certificate of appealability because he has failed to make a ‘substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,’ 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and DISMISS his appeal.”

Reynolds v. Apfel
161 F.3d 18 · 1998-09-15
Appeal (appellant (claimant)) Denied

“The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma upholding the Commissioner's denial of benefits is, therefore, AFFIRMED.”

Migneault v. Peck
· 2000-02-25
Appeal (appellant (state university)) Granted

“We therefore REVERSE the district court’s denial of Eleventh Amendment immunity to the University and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the United States Supreme Court.”

Wilcox v. Peterson
· 2002-04-12
Appeal (appellant (petitioner)) Denied

“For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order of dismissal, and DISMISS Mr. Wilcox’s appeal.”

United States v. Cook
· 2002-04-12
Appeal (appellant (defendant)) Denied

“For these reasons, we deny Mr. Cook’s motion for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS his appeal.”

Waeckerle v. Oklahoma
· 2002-04-12
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff)) Denied

“Therefore we AFFIRM the district court’s order dismissing Mr. Waeckerle’s action.”

Harmon v. Calbone
· 2002-04-19
Appeal (appellant (petitioner)) Denied

“For this reason, Mr. Harmon’s application for a certificate of appealability is denied and his appeal is DISMISSED.”

United States v. Harvey
· 2005-04-01
Appeal (appellant (defendant)) Moot / procedural

“Thus, for the reasons articulated herein, and for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s September 10, 2004 order, we DENY Mr. Harvey’s request for a certificate of appealability, DENY his request to proceed in forma pauperis, and DISMISS his appeal.”

Crandall v. Bowersox
· 2005-05-16
Appeal (appellant (petitioner)) Denied

“Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we DENY Mr. Crandall’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS his appeal.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Circuit judges review appeals rather than manage a federal trial docket, so trial-court caseload and motion-timing metrics do not apply.

Draft for Judge Brorby with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brorby, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Brorby's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace