Edward Huggins Johnstone

United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky district Deceased · served 1977–1993 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 16 signed orders read

Judge Johnstone no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Johnstone decides

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

What persuades

Johnstone treated reliable internal controls as essential when a taxpayer delegated fixed filing duties to an employee.

“The necessity of the Boyle rule is particularly apparent in the corporate context, because a corporation can act only through its agents and employees.”

Johnstone distinguished direct quid pro quo evidence from cases requiring an inference of discrimination.

“In a quid pro quo sexual harassment case a plaintiff does not seek to prove discrimination by inference, but by direct evidence of a supervisor’s unwelcome sexual advances.”

Johnstone enforced the parties' express limits on arbitration where the agreement reserved hiring decisions to management.

“The collective bargaining agreement clearly exempts from arbitration management decisions such as hiring and firing.”

Procedural preferences

Johnstone required a concrete basis for punitive damages against an employer rather than imputing an employee's conduct automatically.

“Nothing indicates that Builders Transport in anyway authorized, ratified, or should have anticipated the complained of behavior.”

Signed rulings

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

National Business Ass'n Trust ex rel. National Benefit Administrators, Inc. v. Morgan
· 1991-02-15
Motion for contempt (state insurance commissioner) Denied

“Therefore, the motion of the Commissioner to hold NBAT and its executive director and NBA and its officers and shareholders in contempt is DENIED.”

Carter v. Builders Transport, Inc.
· 1992-07-08
Motion for partial summary judgment (injured driver) Denied

“For the reasons stated in the February 27th Memorandum Opinion the motion will be denied.”

Summary judgment (estate) Denied

“third party defendant and her motion for summary judgment will be denied.”

Motion for partial summary judgment (employer) Granted

“Thus Builders Transport motion for partial summary judgment will be granted.”

Midwest Terminals, Inc. v. United States
· 1992-08-18
Summary judgment (United States) Granted

“The United States’ motion for summary judgment is granted.”

Gardinella v. General Electric Co.
· 1993-10-01
Summary judgment (employer) Denied

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that GE’s motion for summary judgment is OVERRULED.”

Hines v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc.
· 1993-02-04
Summary judgment (employer) Granted

“The motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Elf Atochem North America, Inc., to dismiss the claims for wrongful discharge for the retaliation for failure to violate federal and state OSHA statutes is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (employer) Granted

“Atochem’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim for outrage is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (employer) Denied

“Atochem's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim for breach of an implied contract is DENIED.”

United States v. Distler
· 1991-07-12
Summary judgment (corporate purchaser) Granted

“Accordingly, AngeU’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.”

Munn v. Pfizer Hospital Products Group, Inc.
· 1990-10-17
Summary judgment (manufacturer) Granted

“Munn’s strict liability and negligence claims against Pfizer for injuries sustained due to an alleged defect in the first nail are barred.”

Summary judgment (manufacturer) Denied

“Accordingly, Pfizer is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, under theories of strict liability and negligence, for an alleged defect in the second nail.”

Summary judgment (manufacturer) Granted

“Accordingly, Pfizer is entitled to summary judgment on Munn’s breach of warranty claim.”

Pennwalt Corp. v. Local Lodge No. 1969
· 1986-07-14
Summary judgment (employer) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”

Benefax Corp. v. Wright
· 1990-12-14
Summary judgment (benefit administrators) Denied

“For the reasons stated, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied.”

Glass v. Secretary, Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service
· 1988-09-28
Lien priority claim (Internal Revenue Service) Granted

“Defendant IRS has the superior lien.”

Glass, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers International Union v. Deena Products Co.
· 1986-03-27
Summary judgment (union) Granted in part

“Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to its claims for arbitration and enforcement of an arbitration award;”

Summary judgment (union) Denied

“Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to its claims for enforcing an agreement resolving a grievance and for attorney’s fees;”

Summary judgment (employer) Denied

“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED;”

Ralcorp Holdings, Inc. v. Fricke
· 2003-06-30
Summary judgment (benefit plan) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for imposition of a constructive trust and for entry of judgment as a matter of law (DN 39) is granted.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The located historical matters included product-liability, prisoner civil-rights, fraud, insurance, railway labor, contract, and asbestos disputes. The sampled records did not contain usable motion timelines.

A historical record

Judge Johnstone 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.