Richard L. Nygaard
How Judge Nygaard rules, drawn from 43 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Nygaard decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
When a single witness supplies every link to an identification, inconsistencies in that witness's account carry greater weight in the probable-cause analysis.
“However, having only one witness as the source of information about a crime and perpetrator does, logically, cast a brighter light on the body of evidence she or he provides. In such cases, the significance of any consistency or discrepancy in the witness’ evidence is enhanced because these are the only indicia of the witness’ reliability that are available.”
A Pennsylvania aggravated-assault subsection did not qualify as a violent felony because it could be violated by failing to act.
“We relied on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision United States v. Harris, 289 A.3d 1060 (Pa. 2023), to find ‘that Section 2702(a)(3) can at least be violated by a failure to act, so it is not a violent felony.’”
ERISA fee eligibility may rest on litigation causing voluntary relief; the claimant need not first obtain a judicial merits ruling.
“The ‘catalyst theory’ of recovery is available to the Appellants, and judicial action is not required under that theory in order to establish some degree of success.”
Procedural preferences
Discovery of anticipated-litigation materials required a showing of substantial need and inability to obtain their equivalent without undue hardship.
“Thus, Kafrissen must make a showing of substantial need and undue hardship before these documents must be produced.”
Evidence of government inducement and lack of predisposition required an entrapment instruction on the robbery and firearm charges.
“We agree that the District Court should have given an entrapment instruction on the robbery and gun possession charges.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because Wall's petition was timely, we will reverse and remand the cause to the District Court with instructions to reinstate his petition, and to review it on the merits.”
“We will reverse the District Court's order and remand with instruction to grant the writ of habeas corpus and ensure that Chavez-Alvarez is promptly afforded a bond hearing.”
“The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has appealed. We will affirm.”
“We will affirm.”
“We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Shah's motions to reopen and rescind his in absentia deportation order. Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review.”
“In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court dated the day of March 13, 2002.”
“Therefore, we now hold that Alleyne cannot be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. The Winkelmans' latest motions are, consequently, denied.”
“after our own comprehensive review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, we will affirm essentially for the reasons given by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court in their respective opinions.”
“for essentially the same reasons set forth by the District Court, the judgment appealed in this case will be, in all respects, affirmed.”
“We agree with the District Court that the Non-Trial Plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case and conclude that summary judgment is appropriate. We will affirm.”
“In sum, we find this appeal statutorily moot.”
“In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court filed February 14, 2002 and the order of the District Court filed April 24, 2002.”
Draft for Judge Nygaard with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Nygaard, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Nygaard's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace