James Lowell Oakes

How Judge Oakes rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Position
Circuit judge
Status
Deceased
Served
1971–2007
Appointed by
Richard Nixon (Republican)
Commissioned
May 27, 1971
Education
Harvard University, A.B., 1945; Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1947
Signed orders read
30

About Judge Oakes

James Lowell Oakes was a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Appointed by President Richard M. Nixon, Judge Oakes received a commission on May 27, 1971. Judge Oakes previously served on the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, commissioned there on April 24, 1970. Judge Oakes assumed senior status on June 30, 1992 and served until death on October 13, 2007.

How Judge Oakes decides

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

What persuades

In Cameron’s pro se prisoner appeal, he held that the district court had wrongly dismissed the civil-rights complaint as frivolous before service because neither a statute nor controlling precedent clearly foreclosed the liberally construed pleading.

“a federal judge should not dismiss a prisoner’s pro se, in forma pauperis claim as frivolous unless statute or controlling precedent clearly forecloses the pleading, liberally construed.”

Procedural preferences

In Cameron v. Fogarty, he reiterated the circuit’s disfavor of dismissing a prisoner’s complaint on the merits through screening before service.

“This court has previously indicated its disfavor with the use of the in forma pauperis screening procedure to dismiss prisoners’ complaints on the merits after filing and before service.”

Signed rulings

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

United States v. Henry Halitzer
· 1972-02-10
Appeal (petitioner-appellant (Section 2255)) Denied

“Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.”

United States v. Edward Pravato
· 1974-11-11
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Granted in part

“Judgment affirmed; sentence on Count One vacated.”

ITT World Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
· 1977-06-03
Petition for review (petitioner (international record carriers)) Denied

“the petitions for review are denied.”

Audiovisual Publishers, Inc. v. Cenco, Incorporated
· 1978-07-19
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“The order is accordingly affirmed.”

Roza Kolodnay v. Richard Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services
· 1982-05-20
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant (SSI claimant)) Granted

“Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a hearing by a different administrative law judge.”

Red Star Barge Line, Inc. v. Nassau County Bridge Authority
· 1982-06-23
Appeal (defendant-appellant (Bridge Authority)) Granted in part

“Judgment affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

Kenneth S. Cameron v. Matthew Fogarty
No. 82-2118 · 1983-04-20
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant (pro se prisoner)) Granted

“The court erred in dismissing the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the case is remanded.”

Tyrone H. Maggette v. Stephen Dalsheim
· 1983-06-10
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant (pro se prisoner)) Granted

“Reversed and remanded.”

Long Island Airports Limousine Service Corp. v. Playboy-Elsinore Associates
· 1984-07-17
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Granted

“Judgment reversed and cause remanded.”

20th Century Wear, Inc. v. Sanmark-Stardust Inc.
· 1987-03-24
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“Judgment affirmed.”

Gencarelle v. General Dynamics Corporation
· 1989-12-14
Petition for review (claimant-petitioner) Denied

“The order of the BRB is therefore AFFIRMED.”

Roberts v. Consolidated Rail Corporation
· 1989-12-26
Appeal (third-party defendant-appellant) Denied

“Judgments affirmed.”

A historical record

Judge Oakes no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.