Thomas Aquinas Flannery

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia district Deceased · served 1971–1985 Appointed by Richard Nixon (Republican) 20 signed orders read

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

How Judge Flannery decides

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

What persuades

He denied summary judgment where resolving the parties’ conflicting accounts required credibility determinations.

“It is well-established that resolving credibility questions is beyond the province of the Court.”

He gave weight to the inconvenience imposed on nonparty witnesses when transferring venue.

“Even more significant is that trial here would also place a burden on witnesses not affiliated with either party. The Court finds no reason to disregard the inconvenience to these witnesses.”

Cautions

He required an identifiable allegation or participation in protected activity rather than silent resistance to support an ADEA retaliation claim.

“However, this Court can find no case law which suggests that protected ‘opposition’ extends beyond open allegations of discrimination to the sort of stoic, silent endurance plaintiff alleges here.”

He rejected standing theories resting on remote market reactions and a tenuous causal chain.

“The mere possibility that the filing of a petition might stimulate foreign speculation leading to panic-induced market dislocations resulting in economic injury to NARI’s members is too remote an injury to support jurisdiction; the chain of causation is too tenuous.”

Signed rulings

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

Beeck v. Federal Express Corp.
· 2000-01-04
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For these reasons, this Court will grant defendant’s motion for summary judgement and dismiss the action in its entirety. An appropriate order will accompany this opinion.”

Dang v. Inn at Foggy Bottom
· 2000-02-18
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied. An appropriate order will follow.”

Daniels v. Barry
· 1987-05-19
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment is denied; and it is further”

Bayonne School Board v. United States Department of Education
· 1986-06-03
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted; and it is further”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.”

Lake Medical Center v. Shalala
· 2000-03-22
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (22) is DENIED; and it is further”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (26) is GRANTED and the action is dismissed in its entirety.”

Harris v. District of Columbia
· 1989-03-06
Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiffs) Denied

“For these reasons, the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is denied. The parties are directed to submit additional motions concerning the job functions of these plaintiffs under the applicable standards for ‘bona fide executive, administrative or professional’ as defined in the Department of Labor’s regulations. An appropriate order accompanies this opinion.”

Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran
· 1991-03-07
Motion for leave to amend complaint (plaintiffs) Granted

“this Court will grant plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint and deny defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Discovery Concerning Personal Jurisdiction.”

Motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery (defendants) Denied
Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. v. Magaw
· 1998-08-07
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“After considering the parties’ written submissions, their arguments at the hearing, and the applicable law, the Court grants the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denies the plaintiffs motion.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Washington v. Government Employees Insurance
· 1991-04-02
Motion for leave to amend complaint (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDERED that plaintiff Washington’s motion to amend the complaint be, and it hereby is, granted; and it is further”

Summary judgment (GEICO) Granted in part

“ORDERED that defendant GEICO’s motion for summary judgment be, and it hereby is, granted as to Washington’s claim of the tort of bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim; and it is further”

Motions to dismiss (defendant Hunter) Granted

“ORDERED that defendant Hunter’s motion to dismiss be, and it hereby is, granted.”

Murphy v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
· 1980-03-25
Motion for protective order (defendants) Granted

“ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for a protective order be, and the same hereby is, granted.”

District Telecommunications Development Corp. v. District Cablevision, Inc.
· 1985-11-27
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“This matter comes before the court on defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motions are granted.”

Suid v. Newsweek Magazine
· 1980-11-26
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be, and the same hereby is, granted.”

A historical record

Judge Flannery 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.