Jeanne E. Scott
How Judge Scott rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Scott no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Scott
Jeanne E. Scott was a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Scott received a commission on October 22, 1998. Judge Scott resigned on August 1, 2010.
How Judge Scott decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Diesi v. Shapiro, she allowed WMB's motion to dismiss, using 'ALLOWED' in the disposition.
“For the reasons stated below, WMB’s Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED.”
In Braucher v. Swagat Group, Scott granted the motions to bar and the Choice summary judgment motions, while granting the Swagat and partial summary judgment motions only in part.
“For the reasons set forth below, the Motions to Bar are allowed, the Choice Summary Judgment Motions are allowed, and the Swagat Summary Judgment Motions and the Partial Summary Judgment Motions are allowed in part and denied in part.”
In GSI Group v. Sukup Manufacturing, Scott denied summary judgment on willfulness because disputed facts remained about Sukup’s alleged willfulness.
“After careful review, the Court concludes that issues of fact exist regarding Sukup’s alleged willfulness. The Motion is therefore denied.”
Procedural preferences
In Petersen v. Union Pacific Railroad, she denied the request for oral argument because she found it unnecessary for that motion.
“Union Pacific has requested oral argument on the Motion. The request is denied because the Court has determined that oral argument is not necessary.”
In GSI Group v. Sukup Manufacturing, she resolved the parties' multiple motions in limine in one opinion and listed dispositions by docket entry number.
“THEREFORE, Plaintiff GSI Group, Ine.’s Motion in Limine (d/e 711) is ALLOWED”
In GSI Group v. Sukup Manufacturing, she denied GSI's motion because it did not identify the evidence it sought to exclude before trial.
“The Motion is DENIED because GSI does not identify the evidence it wants to bar in advance of trial.”
In a motion to bar Dr. Wellborn's expert testimony, she held that Jon Petersen's objection belonged in cross-examination rather than exclusion.
“Jon Petersen’s objection is a matter for cross-examination, not a basis for exclusion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. Issues of fact exist regarding whether the Defendants laid off the Plaintiffs from the Department because of the Plaintiffs’ political affiliation.”
“This matter is fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. For the reasons described below, Defendant’s Motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss (Motion) is denied.”
“The Motion for Oral Argument is denied because the parties have thoroughly briefed the issues, and so, oral argument is unnecessary.”
“THEREFORE, Plaintiff GSI Group, Ine.’s Motion in Limine (d/e 711) is ALLOWED”
“The Motions are ALLOWED in part.”
“The Motion is DENIED because GSI does not identify the evidence it wants to bar in advance of trial.”
“GSI has no opposition to Sukup’s Motions in Limine Nos. 17(b), 18, and 21(b) (d/e 733, 734, and 738). Those Motions are allowed.”
“After careful review, the Court concludes that issues of fact exist regarding Sukup’s alleged willfulness. The Motion is therefore denied.”
“For the reasons described below, Defendants’ Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs Motion is denied.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. Vandersand states a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII.”
“For the reasons set forth below, this Court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for further proceedings.”
“This matter comes before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Compel Compliance With Subpoena to Produce Documents (d/e 12) (Motion). For the reasons stated below, this Motion is allowed.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is allowed in part.”
“Union Pacific has requested oral argument on the Motion. The request is denied because the Court has determined that oral argument is not necessary.”
“For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Bar is denied.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Motions to Bar are allowed, the Choice Summary Judgment Motions are allowed, and the Swagat Summary Judgment Motions and the Partial Summary Judgment Motions are allowed in part and denied in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Sampled assignments run from 1992 to 2010.
- The earliest rows predate her October 1998 commission: they are older Springfield cases still open when she joined the court and reassigned to her, including civil rights and prisoner suits filed in 1992-1997 that did not terminate until 1999-2002.
- That inherited docket is a general civil mix: civil rights and prison-conditions cases, racketeering claims, government foreclosure and collection actions, employment discrimination, ERISA and product liability.
- Her own later docket keeps the same shape and adds consumer-credit and fair-debt claims, insurance and contract disputes, Fair Labor Standards Act and disability-discrimination cases, and a steady line of prisoner habeas petitions and motions to vacate sentence, alongside the criminal docket of the Springfield Division.
- Nearly every civil case in the sample carries a referral to one of two magistrate judges, Charles H.
- Evans or Byron G. Cudmore, across the whole span.
A historical record
Judge Scott no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.