Jesse Ernest Eschbach

How Judge Eschbach rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
Position
district
Status
Retired 1981
Served
1962–1981
Appointed by
John F. Kennedy (Democratic)
Commissioned
1962-04-13
Education
Indiana University, B.S., 1943; Indiana University School of Law (now Maurer School of Law), J.D., 1949
Signed orders read
26

How Judge Eschbach decides

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

What persuades

In a statutory-benefits dispute, Eschbach looked beyond literal phrasing to the legislative purpose while warning against substituting personal policy preferences.

“this court is no more justified in blindly adhering to the hollow letters of the law than in allowing itself to be persuaded by the court’s own sympathies or its individual conception of what is right or what is the best choice of social policy.”

Procedural preferences

When an amended pleading concerned the same conduct, Eschbach applied the federal relation-back rule rather than state labels for causes of action.

“It is clear from the language of Rule 15(c) that the Federal Rules have shifted the emphasis from state theories of law and what under state law may constitute different causes of action to the specific conduct of the defendant upon which the plaintiff relies to enforce his claim.”

Cautions

In an arbitration dispute, Eschbach declined to resolve summary judgment before the factual scope of the submitted grievance could be established.

“On the present status of the record, therefore, the court cannot determine the scope of the issues submitted for arbitration. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied. Likewise, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.”

Signed rulings

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

Gorman v. Saf-T-Mate, Inc.
· 1981-05-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant Saf-T-Mate, Inc.) Granted in part

“the instant motion will be granted in part and denied in part and plaintiffs’ claims against defendant North Harbor, Inc., will be dismissed unless the plaintiff is able to amend the complaint consistent with this opinion.”

Rousseff v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc.
· 1978-06-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“The court will deny defendant’s motion to dismiss the state securities law claim”

Green Ex Rel. Beckler v. Stanton
· 1978-05-05
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be, and it hereby is, granted.”

Green v. Klinkofe
· 1976-11-15
Motion for temporary restraining order (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons given below, this motion will be denied and the cause will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
· 1976-07-29
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“plaintiff’s motion will be granted and defendant’s motion will be denied.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied
United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
· 1975-05-29
Summary judgment (plaintiff United States) Granted

“plaintiff United States’ motion for summary judgment is hereby granted”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“defendant Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company’s motion for summary judgment is hereby denied.”

United States v. Topeka Livestock Auction, Inc.
· 1975-02-07
Summary judgment (plaintiff United States) Granted

“the court now grants plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.”

Motion to set aside default entry (third-party defendants) Denied

“the court denies third-party defendants’ motion to set aside the default entry.”

Essex International, Inc. v. Industra Products, Inc.
· 1974-02-21
Motions to strike (plaintiff-counterdefendant) Denied

“Accordingly, it is ordered that the motion to strike filed by plaintiff Essex International, Inc., be and it hereby is denied.”

Motion to dismiss counterclaims (plaintiff-counterdefendant) Granted in part

“the motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part.”

Wiederhold v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Co.
· 1974-01-09
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Since it is not proper for a court to resolve these disputes on a summary judgment motion, such motion must be denied.”

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 103 v. Irmscher & Sons, Inc.
· 1973-10-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“It is the order of this court that defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (7) is denied.”

Green v. Stanton
· 1973-07-02
Petition for injunction (plaintiffs) Granted

“defendants and their agents and employees are hereby enjoined from refusing to grant AFDC benefits to plaintiffs and other members of their class solely because the applicant’s child is not yet born.”

Grubb v. Sterrett
· 1970-05-07
Petition for injunction (plaintiffs) Granted

“are permanently and perpetually enjoined from denying or terminating AFDC payments to plaintiffs and the other members of the class”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The reviewed decisions predate representative electronic case-level dockets. The profile therefore makes no claim about complete caseload mix, case duration, administrative dispositions, or motion timing.

A historical record

Judge Eschbach 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.