George Ernest Tidwell
Judge Tidwell no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Tidwell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Tidwell coupled subpoena enforcement with targeted confidentiality protections rather than withholding otherwise discoverable material.
“all documents produced are subject to a confidentiality agreement containing the protections stated by counsel for petitioner in open court.”
He rejected estoppel where the tax authority acted within statutory authority conferred by later legislation.
“the IRS did not repudiate its commitment and cannot be estopped from actions within its statutory authority, particularly when its actions are based upon and required by subsequent statutory enactment.”
Procedural preferences
Tidwell responded to withheld and late-disclosed evidence with sanctions that directly affected the merits and the admissible record.
“The court hereby STRIKES defendant’s answer to plaintiff-relator’s amended complaint and GRANTS default judgment in favor of plaintiff-relator with regard to the consultation claims.”
He allowed discovery to reopen only for a defined investigation rather than for unlimited purposes.
“Plaintiff-relator’s motion for discovery [docket no. 203] is GRANTED for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiff-relator to conduct a reasonable investigation”
Cautions
Tidwell treated intervention as limited to the specific public-access issue before the court.
“The newspaper’s motion to intervene [Docket No. 42-1] is GRANTED, but only for the limited purpose of modifying this court’s June 16, 1994 order”
He made fee relief concrete by stating the awarded fees and costs rather than granting entitlement alone.
“are GRANTED in the amount of $263,467.83 in fees and $19,456.70 in costs for a total of $282,924.53.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiffs motion for an award of attorney’s fees [docket no. 96] and amended motion for an award of attorney’s fees [docket no. 99] are GRANTED in the amount of $263,467.83 in fees and $19,456.70 in costs for a total of $282,924.53.”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [docket no. 56] is GRANTED.”
“Defendants Sallie Mae. Inc. and SLM Financial Corporation’s motion to dismiss [docket no. 15] is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs motion to enforce subpoenas and motion to compel [docket no. 1] is hereby GRANTED”
“Plaintiff-relator’s motion for sanctions [docket no.107] is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s motion for leave to file brief in support of its motion for summary judgment that exceeds page limits [docket no. 149] is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff-relator’s motion for leave to file brief in support of her motion for summary judgment that exceeds the page limits [docket no. 158] is GRANTED”
“Defendant’s motion for leave to file brief in support of its motion to exclude plaintiff-relator’s technical experts that exceeds the page limits [docket no. 160] is GRANTED”
“Defendant’s motion for leave to file brief in opposition to plaintiff-relator’s motion for summary judgment that exceeds page limits [docket no. 162] is GRANTED”
“Defendant’s motion for leave to file a reply brief in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment that exceeds page limits [docket no. 168] is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff-relator’s motion for leave to file reply brief in support of her motion for summary judgment that exceeds page limits [docket no. 170] is GRANTED”
“Defendant’s motion for leave to file a reply brief in support of its motion to exclude plaintiff-relator’s technical experts that exceeds page limits [docket no. 172] is GRANTED”
“Defendant’s motion for leave to file brief in support of its motion to dismiss that exceeds page limits [docket no. 200] is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s motion to produce medical records relied upon by Navigant Consulting in preparing its Addendum to the Expert Report dated September 28, 2005 [docket no. 189] is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff-relator’s motion for court-ordered mediation [docket no. 197] is DENIED at this time.”
“Plaintiffs motion to strike defendant’s letter communication with court [docket no. 201] is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s request for a status conference is DENIED at this time.”
“Plaintiff-relator’s motion for discovery [docket no. 203] is GRANTED for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiff-relator to conduct a reasonable investigation”
“The newspaper’s motion to intervene [Docket No. 42-1] is GRANTED”
“the newspaper’s motion to modify the order of dismissal [Docket No. 42-2] is GRANTED”
“the newspaper’s motion for access to the settlement agreement [Docket No. 42-3] is DISMISSED.”
“The newspaper’s motion for a hearing [Docket No. 43] is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
“Wausau’s motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 25] is DENIED”
“Defendant The Faye Keith Jolly Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust’s motion for summary judgment [docket no. 114] is GRANTED”
“Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment [docket no. 116] is DENIED”
“Plaintiffs motion for leave to file excess pages [docket no. 122] is GRANTED.”
“RJR’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED”
“IRS’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The five cross-referenced dockets included contract, consumer-credit, personal-injury, administrative, and subpoena-enforcement matters. They were selected through authored decisions and do not represent a complete caseload sample.
A historical record
Judge Tidwell 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.