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.

Court
U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Position
district
Status
Retired 2010
Served
1998–2010
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1998-10-22
Education
Bradley University, B.A., 1970; Northwestern University School of Law, J.D., 1973
Signed orders read
17

How Judge Scott decides

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

What persuades

States the disposition in the opening paragraph, before the facts, so the outcome is known at the top of the order rather than at the end.

“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.”

Writes 'ALLOWED' where most federal judges write 'GRANTED', an idiom carried over from nineteen years on the Illinois state bench.

“For the reasons stated below, WMB’s Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED.”

Resolves a multi-party motion set piece by piece rather than wholesale, saying in one sentence which side won on what.

“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.”

Denies summary judgment by naming the specific factual dispute that requires a trial, rather than reciting the standard alone.

“After careful review, the Court concludes that issues of fact exist regarding Sukup’s alleged willfulness. The Motion is therefore denied.”

Procedural preferences

Decides on the papers where briefing is complete, refusing oral argument in the same order that resolves the 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.”

Handles large pretrial motion sets in a single omnibus order, ruling on each motion by its docket-entry number rather than issuing them piecemeal.

“THEREFORE, Plaintiff GSI Group, Ine.’s Motion in Limine (d/e 711) is ALLOWED”

Expects a motion to identify what it actually targets; a motion to exclude evidence that does not say which evidence it means is denied on that ground.

“The Motion is DENIED because GSI does not identify the evidence it wants to bar in advance of trial.”

Treats disagreement with an expert's inputs as cross-examination material rather than a basis for keeping the expert off the stand.

“For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Bar is denied.”

Signed rulings

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

Whitlow v. Martin
04-3211 · 2010-06-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“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.”

Manuele v. City of Springfield, Ill.
08-3026 · 2010-06-10
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C.
09-3073 · 2009-11-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss (Motion) is denied.”

Motion for oral argument (defendant) Denied

“The Motion for Oral Argument is denied because the parties have thoroughly briefed the issues, and so, oral argument is unnecessary.”

GSI Group, Inc. v. Sukup Manufacturing Co.
05-3011 · 2008-11-18
Motion in limine (plaintiff) Granted

“THEREFORE, Plaintiff GSI Group, Ine.’s Motion in Limine (d/e 711) is ALLOWED”

Motion in limine (plaintiff) Granted in part

“The Motions are ALLOWED in part.”

Motion in limine (plaintiff) Denied

“The Motion is DENIED because GSI does not identify the evidence it wants to bar in advance of trial.”

Motion in limine (defendant) Granted

“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.”

GSI Group, Inc. v. Sukup Manufacturing Co.
05-3011 · 2008-10-09
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“After careful review, the Court concludes that issues of fact exist regarding Sukup’s alleged willfulness. The Motion is therefore denied.”

Nieman v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
09-3304 · 2010-04-08
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons described below, Defendants’ Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs Motion is denied.”

Motion for oral argument (plaintiff) Denied
Vandersand v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
06-3292 · 2007-07-31
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. Vandersand states a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII.”

Richardson v. Carver
09-3167 · 2009-10-07
Bankruptcy appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“For the reasons set forth below, this Court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for further proceedings.”

United States v. Weaver
09-30036 · 2009-07-15
Motions to compel (government) Granted

“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.”

Petersen v. Union Pacific Railroad
06-3084 · 2008-06-02
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is allowed in part.”

Motion for oral argument (defendant) Denied

“Union Pacific has requested oral argument on the Motion. The request is denied because the Court has determined that oral argument is not necessary.”

Cimaglia v. Union Pacific Railroad
06-3084 · 2008-11-18
Motion to exclude expert testimony (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Bar is denied.”

Braucher Ex Rel. Braucher v. Swagat Group, LLC
07-3253, 07-3254 · 2010-03-19
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Motion to exclude expert testimony (defendant) Granted
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part
Motion for partial summary judgment (defendant) Granted 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. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.