Kevin C. Newsom
How Judge Newsom rules, drawn from 37 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Newsom decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He applies the private-search doctrine by asking whether the government's follow-on review revealed anything materially beyond what the private search had already established.
“the government’s subsequent search of the file, which revealed no new material information, didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.”
For personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants he treats constitutional reasonableness as a contextual, multifactor inquiry rather than a categorical rule.
“Any reasonableness assessment necessarily entails consideration of several factors, is context-dependent, and operates on a case-by-case basis.”
Procedural preferences
He limits jury instructions to theories properly placed in the case through the pleadings or trial, reversing when an unpleaded claim was submitted without that foundation.
“the false-advertising claim wasn’t properly before the jury, the district court erred in giving a jury instruction on that theory.”
He confines equitable relief to the parties and dispute before the court, treating a blanket injunction extending beyond them as an excess of judicial authority.
“the district court overstepped its authority when it issued what was, in effect, a universal injunction.”
He generally leaves issues the district court did not decide for consideration on remand instead of resolving them in the first instance on appeal.
“We are, after all, a court of review, not a court of first view.”
In Burton, the court treated the verified complaint as evidence capable of creating genuine factual disputes, requiring a trial rather than summary judgment.
“The facts contained in Burton’s verified complaint create such a dispute.”
In his Mt. Hawley concurrence, Newsom favored resolving the appeal on one sufficient jurisdictional ground and declined to join additional grounds.
“One is plenty; accord- ingly, I concur only in the majority’s ‘[f]irst’ reason, the discussion of which spans pages 5–6 of its opinion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The judgment of the Tax Court is AFFIRMED.”
“we affirm Munksgard's convictions and sentences. AFFIRMED”
“We lack jurisdiction to address its claim, and therefore AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Flat Creek's complaint.”
“The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”
“We REMAND this case to the panel for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“We therefore affirm the district court's ruling.”
Draft for Judge Newsom with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Newsom, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Newsom's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace