Wendell Arthur Garrity Jr.
Judge Garrity no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Garrity decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Garrity expected a party seeking a different result in a related case to identify a real factual or legal distinction.
“Defendants have failed to make any showing that the instant action is distinguishable from the 1983 case on either factual or legal grounds.”
Garrity treated the combined functional effect of multiple impairments as essential to a lawful disability analysis.
“In much the same way, a mathematician might prove that because two does not equal four, two plus two never equals four either.”
Procedural preferences
Garrity would not require tripartite arbitration where the grievance concerned only contract rights and lacked a jurisdictional component.
“it has no jurisdictional component and therefore there is no reason to make the arbitration tripartite.”
Garrity looked to the substance and continuity of a special-education program rather than treating every logistical adjustment as a change in placement.
“the adjustments made to Benjamin’s after-school program were more superficial than substantive.”
Cautions
Garrity denied summary judgment when evidence could support a factual dispute over whether contractual remedies remained available.
“raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the possibility of exhausting contractual remedies.”
Garrity used preliminary relief to preserve a vulnerable public resource when legal safeguards had not been followed.
“the public interest is best served by enjoining the proposed sale until such time as it may proceed in accordance with the law.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“After consideration of the briefs and the administrative record, the court grants plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denies defendants’ motion.”
“The court’s prior order denying partial summary judgment is reaffirmed.”
“Accordingly, we grant plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to add a claim under c. 93A.”
“the court finds that the Building and Grounds Department of Harvard University is not an ‘education program or activity’ within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) and accordingly orders that defendants’ constructive motion for summary judgment on Walters’ claim under 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) be allowed.”
“Accordingly, the claims against the Town of Milton are hereby dismissed.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Bankruptcy Court is affirmed.”
“As there is no genuine issue of material fact and the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to give rise to an implied indemnity contract, the court grants Varian’s motion for summary judgment.”
“After a hearing on September 8,1983 we granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the fee waiver issue and reserved ruling on the invalidity of the regulation 28 C.F.R. § 16.9(c). We now deny plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on this latter count.”
“Accordingly, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their additional claim concerning the Secretary’s refusal to combine non-severe impairments.”
“the court grants plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denies defendants’ motions.”
“Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to Superior Court for Norfolk County is granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1822 days (N = 20).
The twenty located dockets are a historical archive slice, not a complete caseload. All were terminated. Civil-rights matters predominated, with additional contract, maritime injury, information-access, patent, tax, defamation, and interstate-commerce cases.
A historical record
Judge Garrity 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.