James Robert Elliott
Judge Elliott no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Elliott decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Elliott required evidence sufficient to connect the asserted cause to the governing contractual standard, even when an expert offered a possible explanation.
“It is the Court’s view that even if the affidavit of Dr. Johnson is given consideration it does not create a jury issue”
He treated subject-matter authority as a limit that party consent or silence could not cure.
“a creditor’s express or implied assent to an improper stay does not, and cannot, confer jurisdiction on the Court to provide such relief.”
Procedural preferences
Elliott enforced post-verdict filing deadlines according to the date the motion reached the court, not the date it was mailed or served.
“motion is filed with the Court and not when service is perfected upon opposing counsel”
Before dismissing for failure to prosecute, he made an express finding that the circumstances were extreme and lesser sanctions would not suffice.
“the Court makes the specific finding that we have here the requisite extreme circumstances which would justify dismissal of the Plaintiff’s complaint and that lesser sanctions would not suffice”
Cautions
Elliott did not treat the imminence of an execution as sufficient by itself; the petitioner still had to show a substantial likelihood of success.
“Regarding the petitioner’s contention of irreparable injury, the law cannot contemplate the carrying out of the execution alone as that harm”
He scrutinized delayed enforcement actions for lost witnesses, faded memories, and missing records that impaired the opposing party's defense.
“Since key witnesses and records are unavailable to the company prejudice has arisen and lesser sanctions will not suffice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Consistent with the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be and is hereby sustained, and an appropriate judgment will be entered.”
“Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court’s order appealed from is reversed and it is directed that the stay contained in Article VIII of the debtor’s plan of reorganization be stricken as exceeding the Bankruptcy Court’s authority.”
“Accordingly, the appeal is denied and the order appealed from is affirmed.”
“Accordingly, the appeal is denied and the order appealed from is affirmed.”
“The motion of Plaintiffs, Kinnett Dairies, Inc., et al., for summary judgment is granted.”
“It follows therefore that the motion of the Defendant Secretary of Agriculture for summary judgment is denied.”
“Consistent with the foregoing, we are led ineluctably to conclude that Crown’s motion for summary judgment on Darrah’s complaint and on Count I of its counterclaim should be and the same is hereby sustained.”
“Consistent with the foregoing, the findings and conclusions of the Bankruptcy Court are confirmed and the appeal is denied.”
“Consistent with the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that the relief sought by the Plaintiffs in their complaint is denied and that Plaintiffs’ complaint be and is hereby dismissed and that this Court’s order of April 27, 1988, in this matter is vacated.”
“Consistent with the foregoing determination, it is directed that judgments be entered in favor of Royal Crown Cola Co. against The Coca-Cola Company in an amount of $394,862 and against Pepsico, Inc. in the amount of $284,825 and against Dr Pepper Co. in the amount of $394,862.”
“It is therefore the judgment of the court that $7,000,000.00 is a reasonable attorneys’ fee for counsel for the Plaintiff Class and it is directed that said amount be paid to them jointly.”
“For the reasons above stated, the motion of the Defendant General Electric Company for summary judgment is granted in the case of Otto Brown vs. General Electric and in the case of Brenda Brown vs. General Electric.”
“Accordingly, the Court directs that judgment be entered in favor of the Defendant, with costs to be assessed against the Plaintiff.”
A historical record
Judge Elliott 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.