William Edward Doyle

United States District Court for the District of Colorado district Retired 1971 · served 1961–1971 Appointed by John F. Kennedy (Democratic) 21 signed orders read

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

How Judge Doyle decides

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

What persuades

He treated disputed intent, knowledge, and reliance as trial questions rather than matters for summary disposition.

“Generally, summary judgment is inappropriate where issues of motive, intent or knowledge are presented.”

He granted preliminary relief where official action threatened equal educational protection and likely success was shown.

“The action taken must be ruled unconstitutional, and the proposed action must be enjoined.”

He preserved the status quo when irreversible resource use would foreclose the decision reserved to the political branches.

“The interests of the plaintiffs and the public in maintaining the status quo until the requirements of the Act have been fulfilled far outweigh this desire to get the job done now”

Procedural preferences

He limited corporate discovery to information within the responding entity's possession or control.

“since a subsidiary does not control the parent it is not required to furnish information held by the latter.”

He favored expert discovery when it advanced truth-seeking, while reserving cost allocation to prevent unfair burden.

“the trial is a search for truth and not a tactical contest which goes to either the richest or to the most resourceful litigant.”

In diversity cases he followed settled state law rather than predicting a doctrinal change without evidence from the state's courts.

“We are compelled to follow existing law and not shunt it aside in favor of a rule which we might regard as more just and flexible.”

Cautions

A private actor's assertion of official authority did not, by itself, establish action under color of state law.

“The Civil Rights Act requires some vesting of authority by the state, and defendant’s self-proclaimed authority will not suffice.”

Signed rulings

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

Financial Industrial Fund, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
· 1970-08-13
Summary judgment (Merrill Lynch) Denied

“the motions for summary judgment should be and the same are hereby denied.”

Summary judgment (McDonnell Douglas Corporation) Denied
United States v. Ortiz
· 1970-04-15
Motion to suppress (defendant Noland) Denied

“the motions of defendants to suppress the evidence which resulted from the search of the cabin and out-building in question should be and the same are hereby denied.”

Motion to suppress (defendant Ortiz) Denied
EMPLOYERS'FIRE INSURANCE CO., BOSTON, MASS. v. Behunin
· 1967-11-02
Summary judgment (defendant Behunin) Granted in part

“The motion for summary judgment is therefore granted as to all claims arising out of damages to the work in process under the Behunin subcontract and is denied as to all claims arising out of damages to the work in process of other participating subcontractors.”

Keyes v. School District Number One, Denver, Colorado
· 1969-08-05
Preliminary injunction (plaintiffs) Granted

“The motion for preliminary injunction is granted.”

United States v. Foresyth
· 1971-01-14
Motion for temporary injunction (United States) Granted

“the temporary injunction to prevent further damage to the land pending administrative determination of the validity of the claims should be granted.”

Warren v. Cummings
· 1969-09-12
Motions to dismiss (John Cummings) Granted

“to dismiss should be, and the same are hereby granted.”

Motions to dismiss (William Cummings) Granted
Motions to dismiss (Robertson) Granted
Bannowsky v. Krauser
· 1969-01-16
Motion to strike damages demand (defendant Krauser) Granted

“The motion to strike is granted.”

Parker v. United States
· 1970-02-27
Motion for injunction (plaintiffs) Granted

“We determine that the preliminary injunction heretofore entered be continued indefinitely or until a determination has been made by the President and Congress that East Meadow Creek is predominantly wilderness in character and should be made part of Gore Range-Eagles Nest or that it should not be.”

United States v. Casias
· 1969-12-03
Motion for judgment of acquittal (defendant) Granted

“The motion for judgment of acquittal should therefore be and is hereby granted in accordance with this opinion.”

United States v. Brown
· 1963-05-09
Preliminary injunction (United States) Denied

“Ordered that the motion for a preliminary injunction be, and it is hereby denied.”

Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Mountain States Mining & Milling Co.
· 1965-04-09
Discovery objection (plaintiff) Granted

“The objection of the plaintiff should be and the same is, hereby sustained.”

Seven-Up Bottling Co. v. United States
· 1966-01-21
Motion for protective order (plaintiff) Denied

“the objection of the plaintiff should be overruled”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Doyle's reported district-court decisions include civil rights, criminal procedure, bankruptcy, securities, federal administration, public lands, tax, insurance, and commercial disputes. No retained electronic records are available to quantify his caseload.

A historical record

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