David Rasmussen Hansen
How Judge Hansen rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Hansen no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Hansen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A federal limitations statute that barred an action on the debt did not eliminate the government's separate right to foreclose its mortgage.
“the statute in no way limits the government’s right to foreclose a mortgage given to secure said debt.”
Strong similarity between an accused product and a patented design supported likely confusion and reputational harm at the preliminary-relief stage.
“Because of the striking similarity of the two products, however, such confusion may be assumed as probable.”
Procedural preferences
An administrative reconsideration request governed by a receipt rule required evidence of actual receipt, not merely timely mailing.
“There is no evidence of record indicating that plaintiff's letter was received and thus filed.”
The court resolved substantial motions on the record while granting targeted briefing requests and denying oral argument when it would not aid the decision.
“Defendant Linn Photo’s request for oral argument, filed August 9, 1989, is denied.”
Cautions
A summary-judgment record failed when an investigator's authority to authorize copying remained genuinely disputed.
“there is at least one major issue of fact which precludes summary judgment.”
A sanctions request needed a grounded factual and legal basis; disagreement with an opponent's theory was not enough.
“plaintiff’s motion for sanctions was reasonably supported in fact.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed December 9, 1988, is granted.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed September 29, 1987, is denied.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed October 14, 1987, is granted. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed decree of foreclosure.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed February 19, 1988, is denied.”
“Defendant’s motion for sanctions, filed March 25, 1988, is denied.”
“Defendant Wendorf s motion to dismiss, filed August 17, 1988, is granted.”
“Defendant Scherling’s motion to dismiss, filed August 22, 1988, is granted.”
“Defendant’s motion to strike jury demand, filed August 12, 1988, is granted.”
“Defendant Linn Photo’s request for oral argument, filed August 9, 1989, is denied.”
“Defendant Linn Photo’s application for leave to file response to reply brief, filed September 8, 1989, is granted.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, filed July 17, 1989, is denied.”
“Defendant’s motion to submit further evidence, filed June 10, 1991, is overruled in part and granted in part.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction against defendant’s infringement of the Soren patent, filed November 16, 1990, is granted.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, filed February 8, 1991, is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendants Douglas A. Rogge and Peter Greuel’s motion for leave to file reply brief, filed May 3, 1991, is granted.”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed February 21, 1990, is denied.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts III through VII, IX, and X, filed April 23, 1990, is granted in part and denied in part. Counts III and IX are dismissed. Counts IV, V, VI, VII, and X are not dismissed.”
“Defendant Linn Photo’s motion for leave to file supplemental reply brief, filed May 29, 1991, is granted.”
“Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for leave to file sur-reply to supplemental reply brief, filed June 11, 1991, is granted.”
“Defendant’s motion to strike certain matters filed by plaintiffs in connection with their resistance to motion for summary judgment, filed February 15, 1991, is denied.”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed November 7,1990, is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment, filed February 4,1991, is denied.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion to limit jury demand, filed February 4, 1991, is denied.”
“Claimants’ request for oral argument, filed June 10, 1991, is denied.”
“Claimant Judy Bly’s motion, filed September 19, 1991, to file a supplemental brief in support of her resistance to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and claimant John Bly’s motion, filed September 23, 1991, to join claimant Judy Bly’s motion to file a supplemental brief are granted.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed March 1, 1991, is granted.”
“Defendant Ted Rohlwing’s motion to dismiss Count VII of plaintiffs’ complaint, filed August 6, 1990, is granted to the extent that it states a claim for damages incurred after E.L.K.’s eighteenth birthday and to the extent that it states a claim for punitive damages.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Hansen's reported Northern District of Iowa decisions include bankruptcy, federal debt collection, employment discrimination, intellectual property, environmental liability, forfeiture, and administrative-benefits matters. The reviewed publications do not support a quantified caseload estimate.
A historical record
Judge Hansen 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.