James Waldo Ackerman
How Judge Ackerman rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Ackerman no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Ackerman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Huber Pontiac, Ackerman found that assigning advocacy and adjudication to the same hearing officer created an unconstitutional risk of bias.
“In my opinion, under these circumstances, a ‘realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weaknesses,’ Withrow, supra, 421 U.S. at 47, 95 S.Ct. at 1464, suggests that in this situation conferring both adjudicative and prosecutorial functions on the same individual poses ‘such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.”
Procedural preferences
In the student-discipline litigation, Ackerman protected a student informant from compelled identification when the informant was neither a participant nor a witness to the challenged search.
“A student, such as the one in the present case, should be able to come forward with information to the assistant principal regarding such activity and the student should not have to fear revelation-of his name and the subsequent social ostracism and possible physical danger.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Government’s motion to quash defendant’s discovery is granted.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion to certify is granted conditioned upon amendment of plaintiffs’ class definition in accord with this Order.”
“the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and refers the cause to the State Civil Service Commission for hearings on the question of the validity of the reorganization.”
“the plaintiff has failed to show the necessary likelihood of success on the merits and, therefore, the motion for preliminary injunction must be denied.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted and defendant’s mo *1173 tion for summary judgment is reserved as to defendant Allphin in his individual capacity and denied in all other respects.”
“Counterplaintiffs’ motion for summa- • ry judgment on Count I of the counterclaim is denied.”
“Counterdefendants’ motion for summary judgment on Count I of the counterclaim is granted.”
“Counterdefendants’ motion to dismiss Count II of the counterclaim is granted.”
“Motion of Giffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen and Bodewes for leave to withdraw as attorneys for plaintiff is allowed.”
“Defendants’ motion to amend counterclaim filed December 8, 1976, is allowed.”
“Defendants’ motion to amend answer filed February 1, 1977, is allowed.”
“The motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to quash warrant and suppress evidence is denied and the cause dismissed with leave granted to seek stay of the order pending appeal.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is granted.”
“1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under §§ 1983 and 1985 is denied. 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure of plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies is denied. 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the § 1985 claim for lack of the necessary class animus is allowed.”
“The decision of the Bankruptcy Judge is reversed.”
“Certificate of importance allowing immediate interlocutory appeal is granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No assigned Southern District docket records were returned under three plausible Ackerman name variants.
A historical record
Judge Ackerman 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.