Jon Ormond Newman
Judge Newman no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Newman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He read general federal-question jurisdiction together with a specific waiver of sovereign immunity instead of treating the Tucker Act as an implied exclusive forum rule.
“No basis exists for reading into the Tucker Act a further intention to limit suits against the government by withdrawing the jurisdiction that other statutes otherwise provide.”
Procedural preferences
He favored a narrowly separated trial where one discrete statutory defense could be isolated without bifurcating the overlapping merits and damages issues.
“separate trial is warranted on one issue that concerns entitlement to relief”
Cautions
He applied federal tolling principles to prevent alleged fraud from consuming the limitations period before a plaintiff reasonably could discover it.
“These strong federal interests will be better served by a uniform federal tolling policy that does not penalize plaintiffs for the time delays caused by the frauds they suffer, but instead tolls the running of the statute of limitations at least until the wrong should reasonably have been discovered.”
He treated ending either side of a conflicted institutional relationship as a sufficient remedy rather than automatically depriving clients of chosen counsel.
“The severing of either relationship sufficiently remedies the problem.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“All that is decided in this case is that Conn.Gen.Stat. § 20-250(4), in defining hairdressing and cosmetology, is unconstitutional to the extent that the definition is limited to services rendered to females, and a declaratory judgment of this partial invalidity may enter.”
“Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment declaring that the tax imposed by Conn. Gen.Stat. § 12-212c is void and unenforceable insofar as it applies to employee welfare benefit plans covered by ERISA, and enjoining the defendant Tax Commissioner and his successors and agents from the assessment or collection of such tax.”
“The defendant’s motion to dismiss is accordingly denied.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied, and defendant’s motion for a separate trial is granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a) only as to the availability of a defense pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-12(b)(l).”
“Accordingly, defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied.”
“Accordingly, those provisions of § 275 that require certification that an abortion is medically necessary are unconstitutional, and the defendants are hereby enjoined from enforcing them.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is therefore denied.”
“Accordingly, the motion is granted, the defendant Pepe’s grand jury testimony is ordered suppressed, and the indictment as to him is dismissed, without prejudice.”
“Accordingly, the motions to disclose are granted, the government’s response is deemed sufficient compliance, and the motions to suppress are denied, no indication of wiretapping having been disclosed.”
“The motion to suppress is denied.”
“Count 8 does not allege an offense under federal law and is therefore dismissed.”
“Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that defendants New Haven Housing Authority, Edward White, Mel Norfleet, and Joseph Ciesluk, their attorneys, agents and employees, and all persons acting in concert with them are enjoined from taking any action to enforce writs of execution or other similar process issued as a result of judgments obtained in summary process actions against those tenants of the New Haven Housing Authority against whom summary process actions were filed with return days of January 9, 1975”
“The state court having held a three-day evidentiary hearing on the pleas in abatement and having rendered its decision sustaining the pleas, and the defendant Housing Authority having, as a result, withdrawn the challenged summary process actions, the temporary restraining order previously issued is hereby vacated.”
A historical record
Judge Newman 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.