Richard C. Tallman
How Judge Tallman rules, drawn from 46 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Tallman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He treats coded efforts to conceal contraband as evidence that a person intended to preserve privacy in a closed container rather than waive it.
“Monghur’s efforts to conceal the subject matter based on what he said on the phone demonstrate both an objective and subjective intention to preserve privacy — not to relinquish it.”
He enforces mandatory statutory prerequisites as written and declines to create a futility exception to the safety-valve disclosure requirement.
“We hold that there is no futility exception to the proffer requirement in § 3553(f)(5).”
When a statutory damages remedy depends on a fact such as net worth, he places the production burden on the party seeking the award.
“Because the FDCPA makes evidence of the defendant’s net worth essential to an award of class statutory damages, we agree with the district court and affirm.”
Procedural preferences
He declines to extend an implied constitutional damages remedy into a new setting when alternative remedial avenues are available.
“In light of the available alternative remedies, we decline to expand Bivens in this context.”
Even when the government's principal search theory fails, he admits evidence that routine lawful procedures would inevitably have uncovered.
“Therefore, the evidence was properly admitted under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The district court properly denied Marquez's motion to suppress the contraband found during TSA screening.”
“AFFIRMED.”
“Therefore, the evidence was properly admitted under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the conviction and the order denying Monghur's suppression motion and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings.”
“The Washington Supreme Court has now held that the WPLA permits relief in such circumstances, therefore we REVERSE and REMAND to permit Bylsma to amend his Complaint to conform to Washington law.”
“We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.”
“REVERSED AND REMANDED.”
“For that reason, we deny Ezell's motion for certification to file another habeas corpus petition.”
“Since we hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the authentication of his voice on the recordings, we affirm Ortiz's conviction.”
“PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.”
“We affirm the judgment of the district court.”
“Prigge's conviction is therefore AFFIRMED.”
Draft for Judge Tallman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Tallman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Tallman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace