Larry J. McKinney

How Judge McKinney rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge McKinney 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
1987–2017
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
1987-07-20
Education
MacMurray College, B.A. (1966); Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington, J.D. (1969)
Signed orders read
19

How Judge McKinney decides

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

What persuades

In Dinner Bell Markets, McKinney required concrete proof that enforcement would cause harm beyond ordinary economic loss before granting a stay.

“irreparable harm is more than monetary loss; there must be more than a speculative chance of other irreparable injury.”

Procedural preferences

In Kress, McKinney rejected class treatment where the record showed isolated incidents rather than a policy common to the proposed class.

“Plaintiffs have not shown that these individual incidents resulted from policies or procedures applied to all Jail II inmates.”

Signed rulings

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

Fosnight v. LVNV Funding, LLC
· 2015-10-22
Class certification (plaintiff) Granted

“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Patty Fosnight’s Amended Motion for Class Certification.”

Class certification (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiff Patty Fosnight’s Motion for Class Certification is DENIED AS MOOT.”

Donaldson v. LVNV Funding, LLC
· 2015-04-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS Defendant LVNV Funding, LCC’s, Motion to Dismiss.”

Pierce v. Visteon Corp.
· 2011-12-30
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS in PART and DENIES in PART Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Claims of Certain Class Members.”

Motion for rule 11 sanctions (plaintiff class) Denied

“the Court DENIES the Class’s Rule 11 Motion.”

Kress v. CCA of Tennessee, LLC
· 2010-12-01
Class certification (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. No. 29) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Union Savings Bank v. Allstate Indemnity Co.
· 2011-11-21
Summary judgment (third-party defendant Kristin Tod) Granted

“the Court GRANTS third party defendant’s, Kristin Tod, Motion for Summary Judgment”

Summary judgment (plaintiff Union Savings Bank) Granted

“The Court further GRANTS plaintiffs, Union Savings Bank, Motion for Summary Judgment”

Summary judgment (defendant Allstate Indemnity Company) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS in PART and DENIES in PART, defendant’s, Allstate Indemnity Company, Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Floyd v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n
· 2017-03-16
Summary judgment (defendant U.S. Bank) Granted

“the Court GRANTS U.S. Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Motions to strike (defendant U.S. Bank) Granted

“The Court GRANTS U.S. Bank's Motion to Strike Surre-ply”

Bowersock v. Davol, Inc.
· 2017-02-23
Motion in limine (defendants) Granted

“For the reasons stated herein, the Defendants’, Davol, Inc, and C.R. Bard,- Inc., Motion's in Limine to exclude the testimony of Dr. Stephen Ferzoco (Dkt. 33) and Dr. William A. Hyman (Dkt. 39), as well as the Motion in Limine to limit the testimony of Dr. Roland Kohr (Dkt. 37), are GRANTED”

Motion in limine (defendants) Granted
Motion in limine (defendants) Granted
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Defendants’, Davl, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc., Motion for Summary- Judgment (Dkt. 30), is GRANTED.”

Pulse Engineering, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
· 2009-12-18
Summary judgment (plaintiff Pulse Engineering) Granted in part

“Pulse’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 87) is GRANTED in part on the issue of choice of law”

Summary judgment (plaintiff Pulse Engineering) Granted

“Pulse’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 207) on choice law is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (defendant Travelers) Denied

“Travelers’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 86) is DENIED in part on the issue of choice of law”

Summary judgment (defendant North River) Denied

“North River’s and INA’s Partial Motions for Summary Judgment on the issue of choice of law (Dkt. Nos. 201 and 204) are DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant INA) Denied
FinishMaster, Inc. v. Wausau Benefits, Inc.
· 2006-03-24
Summary judgment (defendant Wausau Benefits) Granted

“the Court GRANTS defendant’s, Wausau Benefits, Inc., Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Foxworthy v. Buetow
· 2007-06-22
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“defendants’, Karl Buetow and West Central Conservancy District, Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.”

United States v. Cinergy Corp.
· 2005-11-01
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“Cinergy’s motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs’ claims against it for civil fines related to the Older Projects is GRANTED. Cinergy’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims against it for injunctive relief related to the Older Projects is DENIED.”

United States v. Cinergy Corp.
· 2007-06-18
Summary judgment (plaintiff United States) Granted

“the plaintiffs, United States of America, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Cinergy’s ‘Fair Notice’ Defense (Docket No. 599), is GRANTED”

Summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“the defendants’, Ciner-gy Corp., PSI Energy, Inc., and the Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Fair Notice (Docket No. 669), is DENIED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 662 days (N = 5).

The five sampled terminated matters were filed in July 1987. They included employment civil rights, veterans-benefit recovery, disability-benefit review, and habeas matters; one record did not report a nature of suit.

A historical record

Judge McKinney 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.