Joshua Paul Kolar
How Judge Kolar rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Kolar decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a retirement-account exemption appeal, Kolar framed the dispositive task around the meaning of a single statutory phrase and resolved it by reading the Illinois provision together with the federal tax provisions it incorporated.
“It is narrow in that the question we must answer requires statutory interpretation of a single phrase.”
In an employee-benefits appeal, he distinguished additional or corrected information, which a plan must consider, from a fundamentally inconsistent claim based on changed onset and last-worked dates.
“While an employee benefit plan must consider additional or corrected information on appeal, it need not consider completely inconsistent information.”
In a premises-liability appeal, he treated an isolated targeted shooting as unforeseeable despite prior non-shooting service calls and general evidence about neighborhood crime.
“because this extreme, isolated, and unprovoked display of violence was not reasonably foreseeable, we affirm.”
In a False Claims Act retaliation appeal, he required the employee's internal communications to alert the employer to suspected fraud rather than only regulatory concerns.
“AbbVie could not have retaliated against Lewis as a fraud whistleblower because he never blew the whistle on fraud. We affirm.”
In a contract appeal, he treated proof of recoverable expectation or reliance damages as essential even where the parties disputed whether a negotiation obligation existed.
“37celsius’s breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law.”
In a consumer-arbitration appeal, he required evidence of mutual assent to the asserted governing regime before an agreement or its delegation clause could support compelled arbitration.
“Absent any indication that the plaintiffs intended this, we find no mutual assent. We, therefore, affirm the district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.”
In a warrant challenge, he examined both the investigation supporting the warrant and the reasonableness of its execution, then identified established warrant exceptions as an independent basis for affirmance.
“the agents’ investigation of the facts contained in the warrant, and their execution of it, were reasonable. And even if we doubted the warrant or agents’ execution of it, long-recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement apply here, as discussed below. Accordingly, we affirm.”
Procedural preferences
When an earlier circuit decision governed materially similar warrant-execution damage, he applied that precedent and rejected an argument based on a hypothetical different factual setting.
“Hadley cannot escape Johnson's application in this case by arguing there is some other set of facts that should compel us to revisit Johnson.”
In a pro se summary-judgment appeal, he acknowledged the practical difficulty of assembling evidence but still required the nonmovant to produce a sufficient record.
“Though we sympathize with the challenges Lee undoubtedly faced in mustering this evidence while litigating the case pro se below, we find he failed to meet his burden at summary judgment. Thus, we affirm.”
Cautions
Even after identifying binding precedent, he separately tested the appellant's proposed broader rule and stated that the panel had serious doubts about it.
“Third, we briefly explain that—even setting Johnson aside—we have serious doubts about Hadley's proposed holding.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because we find that Green's account, while intended for use in his retirement, is not a tax-qualified retirement plan under applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, we affirm.”
“The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Grinnell, finding it was entitled to rescind the insurance policies based on material misrepresentations. SBC Flood and the individual defendants appeal. We affirm.”
“We disagree entirely and find Porter's conduct was within the scope of the statute and his arguments squarely foreclosed by precedent. We affirm.”
“Because Hadley's arguments for compensation run contrary to our precedent, we affirm.”
“The insurance company affirmed its denial, determining that the information about her return to work constituted a fundamentally different request for benefits. We agree.”
“Our sympathies may lie with Mr. Scott, but because this extreme, isolated, and unprovoked display of violence was not reasonably foreseeable, we affirm.”
“We reject both of Kyereme's arguments and affirm his sentence.”
“The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Smith's motion to stay the district court's award of costs is DENIED as moot.”
“AbbVie could not have retaliated against Lewis as a fraud whistleblower because he never blew the whistle on fraud. We affirm.”
“We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.”
“As for attorney's fees, the contract's fee-shifting language benefits only a party that enforces the contract's terms, so CST's successful defense at trial does not trigger that provision.”
“The district court entered summary judgment for the City, and Jezior now appeals. We affirm.”
“We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision. Thus, we affirm its judgment dismissing this action without prejudice.”
Draft for Judge Kolar with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kolar, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kolar's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace