James L. Foreman

How Judge Foreman rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1972–2012
Appointed by
Richard Nixon (Republican)
Commissioned
1972-03-07
Education
University of Illinois, B.S. (1950); University of Illinois College of Law, J.D. (1952)
Signed orders read
20

How Judge Foreman decides

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

What persuades

In Reese, Foreman favored the repose policy that eventually lets manufacturers organize their affairs without indefinite product-liability exposure.

“The Court finds the policy argument offered by defendant and raised throughout the legislative history of the statute to be the most persuasive. That being that the best public policy is one that allows, after a reasonable period of time, entities to plan their affairs with a degree of certainty that they are not burdened by protracted or unknown potential liability.”

Procedural preferences

In Thornton, Foreman distinguished a corporate employee’s discoverable statement from protected work product sought by an unrelated company.

“A statement of an employee is discoverable as a matter of right pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. -26(b)(3) if said statement would be admissible in evidence against the employer corporation as a vicarious admission.”

Signed rulings

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

Thornton v. Continental Grain Co.
· 1984-12-05
Motions to compel (Tech-Air) Denied

“Tech-Air’s Motion to Compel and For Costs (Document No. 55) is hereby DENIED.”

Motions to compel (Systems Erectors) Granted

“Systems Erectors’ Motion to Compel (Document No. 64) is hereby GRANTED.”

Odom v. Terminal Railroad
· 1985-05-02
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted in part

“the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Count I of plaintiff’s complaint is hereby remanded to the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. Counts II and III of plaintiff’s complaint are hereby DISMISSED.”

Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.
· 1985-10-09
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED.”

Borek v. Town of McLeansboro
· 1986-03-05
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted in part

“The Motion to Dismiss by the Town of McLeansboro and Defendants Broyles, Allen, Prosise, Reynolds, Jerry Engle, and Henson (Document 30) is hereby GRANTED and the plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED as to those defendants; Count I shall remain against Defendant John Engle.”

Stifle v. Marathon Petroleum Co.
· 1986-09-22
Motions to dismiss (third-party defendant) Granted

“Third-Party-Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count III of Third Party Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document No. 30) is hereby GRANTED.”

Dunn v. Peabody Coal Co.
· 1987-06-02
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Document No. 21) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Goldwater v. Alston & Bird
· 1987-07-31
Motion to reconsider or certify interlocutory appeal (defendants) Denied

“the defendants’ Motions to Reconsider or Alternatively to Certify Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) are hereby DENIED in their entirety.”

Motion to amend class notice (defendants) Denied

“The Court finds its prior notice adequate for these purposes and hereby DENIES bond counsels’ and Gallop, Johnson’s motions in their entirety.”

Reese v. National Mine Service Co.
· 1987-11-03
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 28) is hereby GRANTED. Judgment in favor of defendant should be entered as to Counts I and III of plaintiffs’ complaint.”

Lawless v. Central Production Credit Association
· 1987-12-31
Motions to dismiss (appellee) Granted

“appellee PCA’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby, GRANTED and this appeal is therefore, DISMISSED with prejudice”

Mister v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
· 1988-03-01
Motions to stay (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, defendant’s Motion to Stay is hereby, DENIED.”

Local 2414 of the United Mine Workers v. Consolidation Coal Co.
· 1988-03-23
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For these reasons, defendant’s Motion for Summary-Judgment (Document No. 14) is hereby GRANTED.”

Okoro v. Jackson County Nursing Home
· 1988-07-13
Motions to dismiss (Jackson County defendants) Denied

“the Jackson County Defendants’ Motion (Document No. 16) is hereby DENIED in its entirety”

Motions to dismiss (nursing-home defendants) Granted in part

“the Nursing Home Defendants’ Motion (Document No. 18) is DENIED as to those parts relating to the Title VII and § 1981 claims and GRANTED as to the § 1983 claims.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 2465 days (N = 5).

The five sampled terminated matters included habeas, prisoner civil-rights, product-liability, civil RICO, and other civil-rights cases.

A historical record

Judge Foreman 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.