Phil McClellan McNagny Jr.

How Judge McNagny rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge McNagny 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
Deceased
Served
1976–1981
Appointed by
Gerald Ford (Republican)
Commissioned
1976-05-07
Education
Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington (now Maurer School of Law), LL.B. (1950)
Signed orders read
15

How Judge McNagny decides

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

What persuades

In Meding, McNagny treated the insurer’s acceptance of a premium and conditional receipt as creating interim protection until the insurer acted on the application.

“These two decisions generally stand for the proposition that an insurer cannot accept a premium from an applicant, who has completed the insurer’s own application and received a complicated and legalistically phrased receipt, giving the applicant reason to believe he is insured, and then disclaim insurance liability for the interim period because it is not satisfied that the applicant was an insurable risk.”

Procedural preferences

In Standard Oil, McNagny intervened narrowly when a categorical discovery cutoff threatened the parties’ ability to preserve a fair administrative hearing.

“if the Administrative Law Judge simply refuses to listen, there can be no such mitigation of the danger of plaintiffs losing their rights to a fair hearing.”

Signed rulings

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

Pressler v. Haab
HB 74-123 · 1976-09-30
Bankruptcy appeal (defendant-appellants) Granted

“The order of the Bankruptcy Judge is hereby reversed, and the trustee is remitted to proceed in a plenary suit.”

In re September, 1975 Special Grand Jury
· 1977-06-17
Motion to quash subpoena (petitioner Thomas R. Fadell) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to quash the subpoena duces tecum issued by the September, 1975 Special Grand Jury.”

Danaher v. Michaw
· 1977-07-25
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“It is therefore ORDERED that the motion of defendants Ben Michaw, Dick Quattrin, Joseph Dybel, Leonard Hoyda, Chester Czubala, Ray Harvey, and Joseph Klen, as Trustees of the Fireman’s Pension Fund of the City of Hammond, Indiana, be and hereby is granted.”

Smulski v. Conley
· 1977-07-28
Summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“It is therefore ORDERED that the motion of defendants for summary judgment be and hereby is DENIED.”

Meding v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
· 1978-02-10
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Therefore, this Court is compelled by both the weight of authority and public policy in Indiana, to GRANT plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Contract Liability.”

Great Horizons Development Corp. v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
· 1978-06-07
Summary judgment (defendant Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance) Granted

“Therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the motion for summary judgment of the defendant, Massachusetts Life, is GRANTED, and the cross-motion of the plaintiff, Great Horizons, is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff Great Horizons Development Corporation) Denied
Cox v. Guy F. Atkinson Co.
· 1979-03-30
Motion for summary judgment on contract claims (defendant) Denied

“such part of defendant’s Motion arguing plaintiff’s claims for breach of his employment contract should be dismissed because he was discharged for cause must fail.”

Motion for partial summary judgment on tax related damages (defendant) Granted

“It follows that plaintiff is prevented from recovering any damages which stem from his ‘tax related problems’ and defendant’s Motion must be successful in this regard.”

Motion for partial summary judgment on exemplary damages (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, plaintiff is prevented from recovering exemplary damages.”

Standard Oil Co. v. Federal Trade Commission
· 1979-07-30
Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“The Court, being duly advised in the premises, now ORDERS that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and defendants’ motion for summary judgment are both GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in the particulars made evident by the attached Memorandum o^ Decision, and pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part
Bottos v. Avakian
· 1979-09-25
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“For the reasons that follow, the motions to dismiss are GRANTED, and plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED.”

United States v. Midwest Solvent Recovery, Inc.
· 1980-01-31
Preliminary injunction (United States) Granted in part

“The Court, having read plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief and being duly advised in the premises hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion IN PART.”

United States v. Hutchins
· 1980-04-28
Motion to dismiss indictment (defendant) Granted

“the Court now ORDERS that the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment be GRANTED, and that the indictment and all charges on which it was based be, and hereby are, DISMISSED with prejudice.”

In Re Establishment Inspection of Inland Steel Co.
· 1980-06-18
Application for workplace inspection warrant (United States) Granted

“It is HEREBY ORDERED that based on the grounds set forth and under Section 8(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 657(a)), YOU ARE AUTHORIZED to enter the above described premises during regular working hours, for the purpose of conducting an inspection and investigation”

Application for medical examinations (United States) Granted

“For the above reasons the Court considers the type of medical examinations sought here to be authorized by § 657(a) via § 669(a)(6) and § 669(b), and it will permit such medical examinations conducted in accordance with applicable regulations.”

Application to examine records (United States) Denied

“Similarly, nothing in § 657(a) authorizes the examination of medical and job history records, as also sought by the application here.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No assigned Northern District docket records were returned under the four searched McNagny name variants.

A historical record

Judge McNagny 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.