Charles Almon Dewey

United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa district Retired 1958 · served 1928–1958 Appointed by Calvin Coolidge (Republican) 20 signed orders read

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

How Judge Dewey decides

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

What persuades

Dewey favored resolving pleading disputes after factual development when discovery could clarify which negligence theories belonged before a jury.

“questions of what should be the grounds of negligence to be submitted to a jury should not be determined by the court until the parties have had an opportunity to investigate by discovery and otherwise what are the facts surrounding the situation”

He treated a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity as indispensable before a claim could proceed against the United States.

“The rule that the United States may not be sued without its consent is all embracing.”

Procedural preferences

Dewey used discovery tools in place of demands for greater pleading detail when the information was otherwise obtainable.

“the information requested can easily be ascertained by interrogatories as provided by Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure”

He distinguished interrogatories seeking facts from those demanding legal opinions or affirmative action.

“Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 ask for fact questions as distinguished from opinions or constructions of claims”

Cautions

An invention and pending patent application alone did not create federal patent jurisdiction when no issued patent supplied the right asserted.

“These defendants have not shown to the court nor can I find from an extensive examination where this action, or any part of it, is based upon an issue that arises under the patent laws of the United States.”

Signed rulings

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

Marks v. Neufeld
· 1948-10-08
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“this action be, and it is hereby ordered, remanded to the State court from which it was removed.”

Porter v. Rashid
· 1946-08-20
Motions to strike (defendants) Denied

“said motion to strike is therefore overruled.”

Motion for more definite statement (defendants) Denied

“as far as the first count is concerned, the allegations are sufficient, and the request for a more definite statement is overruled.”

Motion for more definite statement (defendants) Granted

“the motion of the defendants to make Count II of the complaint more definite by setting out when and to whom the sales were made and the purchase price of each item alleged to have been sold in excess of the maximum regulatory price, be and the same is hereby sustained”

United States v. O'Carter
· 1949-03-14
Motion to vacate sentence under 2255 (defendant) Granted

“the judgment heretofore entered by it in this case be, and the same is, hereby set aside and vacated and the defendant ordered discharged from further commitment under the sentence.”

United States v. 108 Boxes of Cheddar Cheese
· 1942-11-30
Motion for more specific statement (intervening claimant) Denied

“said motion is overruled”

Mortensen v. Chicago, Great Western Railway Co.
· 1941-09-13
Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“The motion to strike should be and the same is overruled”

Blanc v. Smith
· 1943-01-07
Objections to interrogatories (defendant) Granted in part

“such objections be sustained as to Interrogatories 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20; and overruled as to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11.”

Eller v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association
· 1940-05-01
Motion for leave to use depositions (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff’s motion for leave to use depositions is therefore sustained and permission granted to so use the depositions subject to the objections at the trial as to the competency and materiality of the evidence.”

Nourse v. Birmingham
· 1947-06-30
Tax refund claim (plaintiff) Granted

“plaintiff is entitled to a judgment, which is hereby entered, as against the defendant for the sum of $207.88.”

Southern Grocery Stores, Inc. v. Zoller Brewing Co.
· 1939-02-04
Motion for more definite statement (defendant) Granted

“the motion should be sustained”

Motion for bill of particulars (defendant) Granted

“It is ordered that the plaintiff make its petition more definite in the manner requested by the motion.”

Cowen v. Braun
· 1938-10-03
Motion to require separate counts (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion is overruled”

Smith v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc.
· 1946-02-28
Motions to remand (plaintiff in first action) Granted

“the above two entitled cases be and the same are hereby ordered remanded to the District Court of Des Moines County, Iowa”

Motions to remand (plaintiff in second action) Granted
Hornbeck v. Dain Manufacturing Co.
· 1947-09-25
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No electronic case-level docket exists for Dewey's tenure. The profile therefore makes no claim about complete caseload mix, duration, administrative dispositions, or motion timing.

A historical record

Judge Dewey 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.