Samuel Hugh Dillin

How Judge Dillin rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Dillin 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
1961–2006
Appointed by
John F. Kennedy (Democratic)
Commissioned
1961-09-22
Education
Indiana University, A.B. (1936); Indiana University School of Law, LL.B. (1938)
Signed orders read
14

How Judge Dillin decides

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

What persuades

In Sprigler, Dillin treated the absence of an express indemnification agreement and the workers’ compensation framework as decisive against third-party claims against the employer.

“The exclusive remedy provision of the Worker’s Compensation Act, Ind.Code § 22-3-2-6, should be read to bar all common law indemnity claims by third parties against employers”

Procedural preferences

In Zimmer Paper Products, Dillin applied the complaint-stage rule that pleaded facts are accepted as true when testing whether a counterclaim states a claim.

“Taking Zimmer’s factual allegations as true, as the Court must on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, plaintiff’s motion to dismiss on this basis is denied.”

Signed rulings

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

Bright v. Ball Memorial Hospital Ass'n, Inc.
· 1979-01-11
Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Denied

“plaintiffs’ motion or partial summary judgment is denied”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“defendant’s motion is granted.”

Indiana Hospital Ass'n, Inc. v. Schweiker
· 1982-08-12
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“the motion for partial summary judgment of plaintiff Indiana Hospital Association, Inc. is denied.”

Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“The motion of the defendants to dismiss Cause No. IP 76-522-C for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will be granted.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“summary judgment will be rendered in favor of the defendants in the consolidated cases.”

Perry v. Hartz Mountain Corp.
· 1982-04-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Hartz’s motion to dismiss is denied as to Count I, but granted as to all other counts of the complaint.”

First National Bank of Louisville v. Bezema
· 1983-08-31
Default judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff’s motion is denied.”

Fazekas v. Crain Consumer Group
· 1984-01-19
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“summary judgment must be granted in favor of the defendant.”

Wabash Valley Power Ass'n v. Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc.
· 1988-02-04
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“the motion of the PSI defendants for partial summary judgment on Count I is granted”

Motions to strike (defendants) Denied

“the PSI defendants’ motions to strike and to dismiss are denied.”

Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied
United States v. Zimmer Paper Products, Inc.
· 1989-02-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Zimmer’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Zimmer’s counterclaim are both denied.”

Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Denied
Wabash Valley Power Ass'n v. Rural Electrification Administration
· 1989-05-16
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Wabash’s motion for summary judgment must be granted.”

Estate of Pierson v. Pierson
· 1990-06-28
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“the plaintiff’s motion is granted”

Summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“the defendants’ motion is denied.”

Sprigler v. Osnabrucker Mettallwerke
· 1991-04-16
Summary judgment (third-party defendant) Granted

“the Court grants Koetter’s motion for summary judgment”

Metropolitan School District of Wayne Township v. Davila
· 1991-08-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Davila’s motion to dismiss is denied.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“that of the defendant is denied.”

Wabash Valley Power Ass'n v. Rural Electrification Administration
· 1991-09-19
Motions to stay (defendant) Moot / procedural

“REA’s motion to stay is denied as moot or, in the alternative, on the merits”

Motion to intervene (three nonparties) Moot / procedural

“denies as moot the three motions to intervene”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“the Court grants the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“denies the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 2808 days (N = 5).

The five sampled terminated matters were filed from 1971 through 1975. Their archived metadata did not identify the nature of suit.

A historical record

Judge Dillin 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.