John E. Martin
How Judge Martin rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Martin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In insurance-coverage disputes he resolves the case on the narrowest available policy ground rather than reaching a broad, contested question of state law: declining to decide whether a pollution exclusion was ambiguous and ruling instead on the policy's claims-in-process exclusion.
“Under the principle of judicial restraint, federal courts should not reach out to resolve complex and controversial questions when a decision may be based on a narrower ground.”
In the reviewed FELA action, Martin allowed a jury to weigh circumstantial evidence that an oversized ballast stone caused the injury, applying the statute's rule that railroad negligence need only play the slightest part and declining to choose between competing factual inferences at summary judgment.
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 31]”
Procedural preferences
In Social Security appeals he reverses where the ALJ does not connect the evidence to the conclusion, expecting an explicit 'logical bridge' and a reasoned treatment of every supported impairment (here depression and obesity) in combination before discounting it.
“An ALJ must build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to [the] conclusion so that, as a reviewing court, we may assess the validity of the agency's final decision and afford [a claimant] meaningful review.”
He holds parties to the local summary-judgment rules: a non-movant who does not file a statement of genuine disputes in the form the rule requires risks conceding the movant's version of the facts.
“the Seventh Circuit has routinely sustained the entry of summary judgment when the non-movant has failed to submit a factual statement in the form called for by the pertinent rule and thereby conceded the movant's version of the facts”
On a repeated Social Security remand, Martin applied law-of-the-case principles where the agency again relied on jobs requiring reasoning abilities inconsistent with the claimant's established limitation to simple instructions and supplied no compelling reason to depart from the earlier judicial decision.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the relief requested in Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [DE 12] and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
In the reviewed employment case, Martin required the administrative charge to identify enough conduct and responsible individuals to provide notice and permit conciliation; a bare general statement of race discrimination did not exhaust later discrimination and hostile-environment theories.
“Plaintiff's EEOC charge only stated a generalized belief of discrimination on the basis of race without describing any specific conduct, occurrences, or particular individuals.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court hereby GRANTS Norfolk Southern's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 31] and ORDERS that judgment in this matter be entered in favor of Defendant Norfolk Southern Railroad.”
“The Court accordingly GRANTS Atlantic's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 23] and DENIES Defendants Juan and Maria Garcias' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [DE 25].”
“the Court hereby GRANTS the relief requested in the Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Her Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [DE 16], and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 43].”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 31]”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the relief requested in Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [DE 12] and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the relief requested in Plaintiff’s Opening Brief [DE 15] and AFFIRMS the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision.”
Draft for Judge Martin with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Martin, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Martin's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace