James Ellsworth Noland

How Judge Noland rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Noland 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 Indiana
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1966–1992
Appointed by
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic)
Commissioned
1966-11-03
Education
Indiana University, A.B. (1942); Harvard Business School, M.B.A. (1943); Indiana University School of Law, J.D. (1948)
Signed orders read
18

How Judge Noland decides

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

What persuades

In Seban, Noland treated the statute’s express command that energy assistance not affect other benefits as controlling over the conflicting food-stamp calculation rule.

“This provision in § 8624(f) overrides the contrary provisions in § 2014(e) of the Food Stamp Act”

Procedural preferences

In Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, Noland required a concrete threat rather than conjecture before adjudicating a request for prospective relief.

“The plaintiffs’ conjecture as to the possibilities of retaliation available to the defendants is simply inadequate to establish a real threat of any injury to the plaintiffs.”

Signed rulings

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

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Conway
· 1991-09-30
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the declaratory judgment plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED.”

American Family Mutual Insurance v. Lane
· 1991-03-29
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the declaratory judgment plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED.”

Study v. United States
· 1991-12-13
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“IT IS NOW ORDERED that the motion to dismiss of defendants Henke, Wehmueller, the United States, Thornburgh, Ray, the Marion County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff McAtee, Deputy Romerils, the Indiana State Police, Jennings, Mathis, the Carmel Police Department, Barney, Conn and Smith are GRANTED;”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the alternative motions for summary judgment of defendants Hall, Coan, Kendall, Adams are also GRANTED.”

Numismatic Enterprises v. Hyatt Corp.
· 1992-05-13
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes' that the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED.”

Bateman v. Central Foundry Division, General Motors Corp.
· 1992-03-09
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED.”

Barton v. Sullivan
· 1991-03-29
Motion for oral argument (plaintiff) Denied

“the plaintiff’s motion for oral argument is DENIED”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED.”

Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy v. City of Indianapolis
· 1987-07-20
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Denied

“the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is DENIED”

Seban v. Block
· 1985-09-10
Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Granted

“SUMMARY JUDGMENT shall be entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.”

Class certification (plaintiffs) Denied

“The Court finds that it would be unwise and unnecessary to certify the class.”

Casey Corp. v. Big Blue River Conservancy District (In Re Casey Corp.)
· 1985-02-13
Motions to transfer (defendant) Denied

“having held oral argument, and being duly advised in the premises, hereby DENIES said motions.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“hereby GRANTS said motions for summary judgment.”

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co.
· 1986-03-28
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Therefore, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment shall be GRANTED.”

Russell v. United States
· 1986-02-05
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED”

A.A. Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc.
· 1988-02-03
Judgment notwithstanding verdict (defendant) Granted

“the Court set aside the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and granted Rose Acre’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict”

Motion for new trial (defendant) Granted

“alternatively its motion for a new trial.”

Motion for judgment on counterclaim (plaintiffs) Denied

“the Court must now also deny the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the amended counterclaim.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 3038 days (N = 5).

The five sampled terminated matters were filed from 1970 through 1974. Their archived metadata did not identify the nature of suit.

A historical record

Judge Noland 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.