Edward Skottowe Northrop

How Judge Northrop rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Northrop 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
1961–2003
Appointed by
John F. Kennedy (Democratic)
Commissioned
1961-09-05
Education
George Washington University Law School, LL.B. (1937)
Signed orders read
23

How Judge Northrop decides

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

What persuades

In Universal Security Instruments, Northrop enforced the seller's express agreement to litigate disputes in Maryland as a purposeful forum contact.

“By agreeing to subject itself to the jurisdiction of the State of Maryland, Wing Wah purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business within Maryland”

In Montgomery, Northrop treated the claimant's inability to present his own medical and vocational history as central to whether the administrative hearing was fair.

“claimant was unable to articulate the legal and/or factual basis for his or her claim and was not affirmatively assisted by the ALJ in developing that claim.”

In Caspary, Northrop applied the state legislature's detailed inspection scheme rather than extending a displaced common-law shareholder right.

“it is not the province of this Court, sitting in diversity, to amend state legislation.”

Procedural preferences

In Benford, Northrop reserved a privacy question for trial because the setting and the speaker's expectations required a fact-specific inquiry.

“Only a trial can reveal the entirety of circumstances necessary to resolve this issue.”

In Anuszewski, Northrop read discovery rules functionally, focusing on the third-party defendant's practical stake in defeating or limiting recovery.

“This adverse interest, this court believes, is sufficient to render the stevedoring company an adverse party within the meaning of Federal Rule 33.”

In Walpert, Northrop treated delay after notice of a representative-action problem as decisive against late intervention.

“determinative of the present application will be the fact that the applicant unduly procrastinated after the time when intervention was proper.”

Signed rulings

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

Universal Security Instruments, Inc. v. Wing Wah Chong Investment Co.
· 1990-02-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.”

Bel-Ken Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Clark
· 1988-02-17
Summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“Therefore, this Court will deny defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment.”

Snyder v. United States
· 1989-01-24
Summary judgment (United States) Granted

“this Court will grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment and accordingly deny plaintiffs’ motion.”

Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Denied
Poole v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co.
· 1985-01-31
Motion in limine (defendant) Denied

“the Court concludes that the collateral source rule applies, and plaintiff shall be permitted to submit to the jury his medical expenses for their consideration in determining an award of compensation, if any.”

Haller v. Butler Shoe Corp.
· 1984-10-17
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.”

United States v. P.W. Parker, Inc.
· 1984-05-01
Motions to dismiss (United States Postal Service) Granted

“Accordingly, Parker’s third party complaint is hereby dismissed, without prejudice, in its entirety.”

Kendig v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
· 1987-07-29
Motion in limine (defendant) Granted in part

“While plaintiff will be permitted to introduce evidence relating to bills or expenses for medical care or treatment incurred as a result of his on-duty injury; defendant may counter with evidence demonstrating the extent to which such expenses have already been paid for on its behalf.”

Walton v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
· 1986-06-12
Motion in limine (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, the motion in limine is denied.”

Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Levin
· 1992-02-19
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is hereby denied.”

Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc.
· 1986-05-14
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.”

Clark v. United States
· 1985-06-04
Motions to dismiss (United States) Granted

“Their request for a refund is thereby denied and this action dismissed.”

Caspary v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co.
· 1983-04-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint will be granted in a separate order.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1482 days (N = 7).

The seven sampled terminated matters comprised three asbestos cases, two prisoner civil-rights cases, one disability-benefits case, and one antitrust case; their entry streams were empty.

A historical record

Judge Northrop 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.