William Judson Holloway Jr.

How Judge Holloway rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Position
circuit
Status
Deceased
Served
1968–2014
Appointed by
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic)
Commissioned
1968-09-16
Education
University of Oklahoma, A.B., 1947; Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1950
Signed orders read
33

How Judge Holloway decides

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

What persuades

A retaliatory employment action did not require present tangible harm when it was likely to damage the plaintiff's future job opportunities.

“a plaintiff need only show a likely effect on future job opportunities.”

Bankruptcy turnover required possession during the case, not merely that the asset had once been property of the estate.

“the statutory requirements for turnover, which clearly require possession during the case”

Procedural preferences

Requires a defendant seeking severance to show actual prejudice under Rule 14, not merely the possibility that a jury cumulated evidence across counts.

“No prejudice from denial of severance was shown, as Rule 14 requires.”

An intervening Supreme Court statutory interpretation applied retroactively to cases still open on direct review.

“cases interpreting statutes are ‘fully retroactive because they do not change the law, but rather explain what the law has always meant.’”

The court distinguished nonjurisdictional elements of a federal claim from requirements that limit subject-matter jurisdiction.

“essential elements of a claim (which are not jurisdictional) and jurisdictional requirements.”

Cautions

Workplace incivility and offensive conduct did not establish retaliation without materially adverse action under the governing objective standard.

“Title VII does not establish ‘a general civility code for the American workplace.’”

Signed rulings

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

United States v. Kellerman
· 1971-01-15
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Granted in part

“Accordingly, the convictions are affirmed as to all counts except count 7; the conviction and sentence on count 7 are set aside; and the case is remanded for further proceedings and dismissal of the indictment as to count 7.”

Williams v. Eaton
· 1972-10-31
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“Affirmed.”

Edina State Bank v. Mr. Steak, Inc.
· 1974-01-07
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Granted

“Accordingly the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings and entry of judgment which the trial court finds to be proper.”

Hardy Salt Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
· 1974-07-26
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“Concluding that the District Court committed no reversible error in the dismissal of the federal claims under the Act, or in dismissal of the State law claims discussed earlier, the judgment is affirmed,”

Chief Freight Lines Co. v. Local Union No. 886
· 1975-04-08
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Granted

“Accordingly, the preliminary injunction is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings as provided herein.”

United States v. Swallow
· 1975-04-02
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“Affirmed.”

Chicano Police Officer's Ass'n v. Stover
· 1975-11-20
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Granted

“Accordingly, the findings, conclusions and judgment are vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.”

United States v. Munz
· 1976-10-26
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“Having arrived at this conclusion and finding no reversible error, the judgment is AFFIRMED.”

United States v. Plum
· 1977-07-11
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“None of the arguments we have covered demonstrates grounds for reversal and the remaining contentions call for no further discussion.”

United States v. Speir
· 1977-11-10
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, the judgments are AFFIRMED.”

United States v. One 1975 Thunderbird 2-Door Hardtop
· 1978-05-08
Appeal (claimant-appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.”

Triplett v. Leflore County
· 1983-07-18
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Granted

“we must reverse the order of dismissal because of the denial of leave to amend, and remand with directions that leave be granted to allow amendment of the complaint and for further proceedings.”

A historical record

Judge Holloway 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.