Alexander Atkinson Lawrence Jr.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia district Retired 1979 · served 1968–1979 Appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic) 15 signed orders read

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

How Judge Lawrence decides

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

What persuades

Allowed a class allegation to survive a preliminary dismissal challenge where the pleading was sparse but sufficient for later evidentiary evaluation.

“A more intelligent appraisal of whether to permit a class action can be made after an evidentiary hearing or at some subsequent point in the litigation.”

Preserved negligence questions for a jury where circumstantial evidence could outweigh apparently inconsistent direct testimony.

“It is possible for circumstantial evidence to outweigh in probative value direct testimony inconsistent therewith”

Procedural preferences

Required a particularized showing of need and hardship before allowing discovery into an opposing party's investigative work product.

“Defendants have shown a general, not a particularized, need for the materials they seek.”

Declined to send a case back to an agency after the government had chosen the judicial forum and the disputed issues remained within ordinary judicial competence.

“This Court is a forum and not a shopping center for litigants.”

Cautions

Warned that public facts and ordinary cartographic devices cannot be monopolized without original expression capable of copyright protection.

“The streets, squares and various historic landmarks in ‘Old Savannah’ cannot be exclusively appropriated.”

Preferred trial testing for fact-sensitive negligence disputes even when the existing affidavits made the claim appear weak.

“Negligence is better tested in the crucible of cross-examination than by affidavits.”

Signed rulings

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

Hart v. Buckeye Industries, Inc.
· 1968-11-12
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Certainly, Jenkins v. United Gas Corporation, 5 Cir., 400 F.2d 28 would require me to overrule the motion to dismiss the class action.”

Motion for more definite statement (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion is therefore denied.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted

“The motion to strike the irrelevant portion of the notice dated February 26, 1968, is granted.”

Cook v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad
· 1970-04-08
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“this action is remanded to the Superior Court of Chatham County.”

Libano v. DeWald
· 1969-03-07
Summary judgment (defendant driver) Denied

“Jury questions exist and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is therefore denied.”

Seaboard Construction Co. v. Continental Mortgage Investors
· 1969-04-09
Summary judgment (mortgage investor) Granted

“There is no basis for recovery here and Continental’s motion for summary judgment is therefore granted.”

Lemon v. Bank Lines, Ltd.
· 1976-04-21
Motions to dismiss (vessel owner and charterer) Denied

“I overrule defendants’ motions to dismiss her action under general maritime law.”

Lemon v. Bank Lines, Ltd.
· 1978-05-15
Motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict (shipowner) Granted

“Defendant’s motion for judgment N.O.V. is granted.”

Motion for new trial (shipowner) Granted

“In the alternative (should this Court be in error in that regard) the motion for new trial of defendant is granted on the general grounds”

United States v. Chatham City Corp.
· 1976-12-06
Motions to dismiss (housing defendants) Denied

“The motions to dismiss and for a more definite statement were overruled.”

Motion for more definite statement (housing defendants) Denied
Motion for reconsideration (United States) Granted

“Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s oral order of November 9, 1976 requiring production of certain work product material of the F.B.I. is granted.”

Motion for reconsideration (housing defendants) Denied

“Defendants’ request for reconsideration of the Court’s oral decision overruling their motion for a more definite statement is denied.”

Collins v. Matthews
· 1978-08-07
Summary judgment (benefits claimant) Denied

“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.”

Summary judgment (Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare) Granted

“That of the defendant is granted.”

Moore v. Lighthouse Pub. Co., Inc.
· 1977-04-05
Summary judgment (publisher) Granted

“The motion for summary judgment of Lighthouse Publishing Company is granted.”

Preliminary injunction (guide-map publishers) Denied

“If the matter were merely before this Court on the question of the injunction, such relief would have to be denied”

United States v. One (1) Douglas A-26B Aircraft
· 1977-09-06
Summary judgment (aircraft owner) Granted

“Judgment will be entered granting the motion for summary judgment of Rebel Aviation, Inc. The complaint for forfeiture filed in this Court by the United States in connection with the Douglas Aircraft, Serial No. 28034 will be dismissed.”

Diamond v. Coleman
· 1975-05-21
Summary judgment (county commissioners) Granted

“The motion of the defendant County Commissioners for summary judgment is granted and they are dismissed as party defendants to this action.”

Bennett v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad
· 1969-08-12
Summary judgment (railroad) Denied

“Accordingly, I overrule the motion for summary judgment”

Summary judgment (railroad) Denied

“A second motion for summary judgment filed by defendant asserts that plaintiff has no standing to sue because of the alleged common law marriage of her son. This motion is without merit and is overruled.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The reviewed decisions predate representative electronic case-level dockets. The profile therefore makes no claim about complete caseload mix, case duration, administrative dispositions, or motion timing.

A historical record

Judge Lawrence 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.