Stanley Marcus
How Judge Marcus rules, drawn from 46 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Marcus decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Guidelines analysis he groups related offenses functionally when their levels turn on the same loss measure and grouping advances the provision's purpose.
“All seventeen of Register’s counts should have been grouped under § 3D1.2(d) because their offense level is determined largely on the basis of the amount of loss, the underlying offenses are of the same general type, and, in this case, grouping serves § 3D1.2’s principal purpose of grouping closely related counts.”
He distinguishes state-law liability theories rather than importing a premises-liability defense into a claim based on an employee's active negligence.
“Georgia’s courts have plainly recognized the distinction ‘between negligence cases where a condition on the premises causes injury to someone and those where an employee’s active negligence causes injury to someone.’”
In the phosphogypsum-road case, the court upheld a technical assessment that explained its exposure pathways, assumptions, and project limits. Disagreement with the method did not itself show arbitrary decisionmaking.
“disagreement about technical methodology does not render an agency’s reasoned determination arbitrary and capricious.”
Procedural preferences
He looks past nominal party alignment to the parties' actual interests and requires realignment even when it eliminates complete diversity.
“because the interests of St. Paul and AGLIC were coextensive, there was an absence of complete diversity of citizenship, and the district court lacked the power to entertain the matter in the first place.”
Service must comply with Rule 4 or a court-authorized alternative; delivery by a method lacking either basis cannot support a default judgment.
“that means of service is not specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and De Gazelle had not received prior court authorization to serve Tamaz using that method.”
A federal claim may ultimately fail on the merits without becoming so insubstantial that federal-question jurisdiction disappears.
“As Sanders suggests, the category of claims that are ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous’ is exceedingly narrow.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We have fully reviewed the record and the briefs and have carefully considered each of the issues on appeal, and, finding no merit to either, we affirm the ruling of the district court.”
“In light of that answer, we conclude that Shields's ADA claim is barred by collateral estoppel, and accordingly affirm the district court in full.”
“Accordingly, we vacate the court's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED.”
“Upon thorough review of the record, as well as careful consideration of the parties' briefs, we find no reversible error and affirm.”
“On appeal, Brooks argues the district court erred by finding she did not establish that the County's proffered reason for not promoting her was a pretext for discrimination. After careful review, we affirm.”
“On appeal, Smith argues that: (1) the district court erred by finding that he used the ammunition 'in connection with' another felony offense; and (2) the district court erred under United States v. Booker ... After careful review, we affirm.”
“Accordingly, we discern no error in the district court’s dismissal of Drury’s § 2255 motion as time-barred.”
“The district court dismissed the action as barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.”
“After thorough review, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.”
“We also hold that the district court did not err in applying an eight-level enhancement to Valarezo's sentence, pursuant to 2X7.2(b)(1)(C) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. We, therefore, affirm the district court's orders in all respects.”
“Accordingly, we vacate Register's sentence and remand for resentencing.”
“After thorough review, we affirm.”
Draft for Judge Marcus with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Marcus, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Marcus's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace