Catherine C. Blake

How Judge Blake rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1995–2026
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1995-08-14
Education
Radcliffe College, A.B. (1972); Harvard Law School, J.D. (1975)
Signed orders read
20

How Judge Blake decides

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

What persuades

In Kolbe, Blake connected the statute’s public-safety purpose to the burden imposed on the core constitutional right.

“The Act substantially serves the government’s interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.’”

In Jones, she treated an available less-intrusive search policy as important evidence in the equal-protection analysis.

“the January 2006 decision to search all arrestees to their last layer of clothing demonstrates just how readily available a constitutional alternative was to the Division.”

In CSS Antenna, she relied on the supplier’s combined Maryland contacts to sustain personal jurisdiction.

“These contacts, taken together, are sufficient to show that ATE purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in Maryland.”

Procedural preferences

In Rostholder, Blake applied a strong presumption favoring public access to court filings.

“the presumption in favor of public disclosure of court records can only be overcome by a significant countervailing interest.”

In MHD-Rockland, she chose a fee award rather than dismissal for unjustified noncompliance.

“Instead of or in addition to any other sanction, the court must order the party, its attorney, or both to pay the reasonable expenses — including attorney’s fees — incurred because of any noncompliance with this rule, unless the noncompliance was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”

In Webvention, she organized the stay inquiry around case stage, prejudice, and simplification.

“Specifically, Courts weigh three factors in determining whether to grant a stay pending patent reexamination by the PTO: 1) the stage of the proceedings; 2) whether a stay would unduly prejudice the nonmoving party; and 3) whether a stay would simplify issues and the trial of the case.”

Signed rulings

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

Reimold v. Gokaslan
· 2015-06-08
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, Reimold’s motion to remand will be granted.”

United States ex rel. Rostholder v. Omnicare, Inc.
· 2011-07-28
Motion to unseal (defendants) Granted

“The defendants’ motion to unseal will be granted.”

Hinton v. Deutsche Bank AG
· 2006-06-07
Motion for reconsideration (fund defendants) Granted in part

“The motion for reconsideration will be denied as to § 36(b) and granted as to § 48(a).”

MHD-Rockland Inc. v. Aerospace Distributors Inc.
· 2015-04-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, ADI’s motion will be denied to the extent it seeks dismissal, and granted to the extent it seeks reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”

Motion for attorney fees and costs (defendant) Granted
Kolbe v. Baltimore County
· 2010-08-11
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.”

Bowers v. Bank of America, N.A.
· 2012-11-27
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“For the above reasons, Bowers’s motion for remand will be denied and BOA’s motion to dismiss will be granted.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted
Estate of Boone v. United States
· 2008-12-16
Motion for partial summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, Maryland’s $20,000 liability cap applies in this case, and the court will grant the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment.”

Gardner v. AMF Bowling Centers, Inc.
· 2003-07-03
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiffs motion to remand (Docket No. 10) is DENIED; 2. defendant’s motion for sanctions (Docket No. 12) is GRANTED;”

Motion for sanctions (defendant) Granted
Cunningham v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co.
· 2009-11-12
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs motion to remand will be denied and his motion for leave to file an amended complaint will be granted.”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted
United States v. Foster
· 2004-02-19
Motion in limine to exclude expert testimony (defendants) Denied

“For the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied.”

Goss v. Bank of America, N.A.
· 2013-01-08
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, BANA’s motion to dismiss the Gosses’ complaint will be granted.”

Iraq Middle Market Development Foundation v. Al Harmoosh
· 2011-01-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated below, the defendant’s motion will be granted.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 153 days (N = 9).

Nine valid terminated historical cases included four prisoner civil-rights matters and one each involving habeas, medical malpractice, contract, trademark, and other civil-rights claims. None retained a groundable motion ruling.

A historical record

Judge Blake 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.