Edward Allen Tamm

How Judge Tamm rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Position
district
Status
Elevated to a higher court
Served
1949–1965
Appointed by
Harry S. Truman (Democratic)
Commissioned
1949-04-01
Education
Georgetown College Law School, LL.B. (1930); Suffolk University Law School, J.S.D. (1971)
Signed orders read
18

How Judge Tamm decides

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

What persuades

Administrative action received deference when the agency's interpretation was neither plainly erroneous nor inconsistent with its regulation.

“must be accorded a wide area of discretion and it is a well-recognized rule that administrative action taken by him will not be disturbed by a court unless it is clearly wrong”

A prompt-notice defense succeeded where delay deprived the employer and insurer of a meaningful opportunity to investigate a changing medical condition.

“the employer or his insurance carrier should be afforded a prompt opportunity to examine the claimant at the earliest possible time”

Procedural preferences

The court would not weigh credibility or choose among conflicting deposition inferences on summary judgment.

“Such procedure is improper in a motion for summary judgment since it injects into the case an element which is not in the record, id est, an unidentified, variable evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses.”

Transfer depended on the practical location of operations and witnesses and the interests of justice.

“many of the witnesses will be from Pittsburgh, and the trial will center around activities in Pittsburgh”

Cautions

A search warrant's address had to identify the premises actually searched; probable cause for a different address did not cure the mismatch.

“But, 2144-8th St., N. W., was not the premises searched; 2124-8th St., N. W. was.”

A prior fraud challenge decided by the rendering court could not be relitigated collaterally in a second jurisdiction.

“where the issue of fraud was raised and adjudicated in the ’court of original jurisdiction, the judgment cannot thereafter be attacked in collateral proceedings in another jurisdiction”

Signed rulings

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

Hill v. Bellevue Gardens II, Inc.
· 1958-11-17
Summary judgment (defendants, first motion) Denied

“Based upon the reasons and reasoning set out above, the Court concludes that it must at this time deny the six motions for summary judgment.”

Summary judgment (defendants, second motion) Denied
Summary judgment (defendants, third motion) Denied
Summary judgment (defendants, fourth motion) Denied
Summary judgment (defendants, fifth motion) Denied
Summary judgment (defendants, sixth motion) Denied
Jones v. Pledger
· 1965-02-11
Summary judgment (defendant estate administrator) Granted

“Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”

McGarry v. Udall
· 1962-08-14
Summary judgment (Secretary of the Interior) Granted

“The Court grants the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and, of course, denies the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff lease assignee) Denied
In re Estate of Jarboe
· 1964-11-20
Motions to dismiss (executor) Granted

“Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the executor’s motion to dismiss the petition for caveat to the will of Thomas R.. Jarboe filed by Marie Russell Bury will be granted.”

Moschetta v. Cross
· 1964-11-04
Motion for attorneys fees (class counsel) Granted

“The Court deducts this amount from its total figure of $129,073.13 and concludes that there is owing to Mr. Ratner and his associates on this same quantum meruit basis a balance of $59,073.13 in legal fees, plus the necessary and proper costs heretofore included in earlier itemized statements of account.”

In re DuBois
· 1962-08-06
Petition for restoration of sanity (Harriet DuBois) Granted

“the Court is of the opinion that petitioner has fully regained her sanity and should be restored to the status of a sane person.”

Diamond v. Berman
· 1951-01-03
Summary judgment (plaintiff judgment holder) Granted

“The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”

Nachtman v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
· 1950-05-29
Motions to transfer (defendant) Granted

“In the light of the foregoing it is, therefore, -the ruling of this Court that it would be in the interests of justice to transfer this cause to the Western District o-f Pennsylvania.”

Parsons v. Herzog
· 1949-06-07
Motions to dismiss (labor-board defendants) Denied

“The ' Court, accordingly, denies the defendants’ motion for dismissal.”

Hampton Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp.
· 1950-05-15
Motions to transfer (defendants) Denied

“Defendants’ Motion will be denied and counsel will present Order.”

Bell v. Kelly Motor Lines, Inc.
· 1951-01-31
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“This Court rules that in an action in the District of Columbia to recover for a common law tort which occurred in Virginia, the three year District of Columbia limitation applies, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss is accordingly denied.”

Motions to transfer (defendant) Denied

“The defendant’s motion for change of venue is denied.”

United States v. Buchner
· 1958-05-12
Motion to suppress (defendant William L. Buchner Jr.) Denied

“The motion of the defendant to suppress the seized evidence is hereby denied.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Tamm's reported trial-court decisions include civil procedure, criminal search issues, probate, labor, administrative review, intellectual property, domestic relations, and commercial disputes. The reviewed publications do not support a quantified caseload estimate.

A historical record

Judge Tamm 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.