James Rogers Miller Jr.

How Judge Miller rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Miller 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
1970–2014
Appointed by
Richard Nixon (Republican)
Commissioned
1970-10-15
Education
Wesleyan University, B.A. (1953); George Washington University Law School, LL.B. (1955)
Signed orders read
19

How Judge Miller decides

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

What persuades

In Superior Metal Moulding, Miller required findings on the merits once an objector produced evidence contradicting a bankruptcy claim.

“when an objector to a claim goes forward at the hearing with some evidence contradicting the claim, the objector’s burden of going forward with the evidence is met.”

In Shotto, Miller focused on whether the broker's fortunes were tied to the investor's gains or losses when assessing an alleged investment contract.

“where a plaintiff alleges some interdependency between the profits and losses of the investor and those of the broker”

Procedural preferences

In Witten, Miller deferred summary judgment while class certification and the appropriate scope of discovery remained unresolved.

“As the issue of class certification is still pending, a disposition of the Motion for Summary Judgment is inappropriate.”

In the grand-jury matter, Miller narrowed an overbroad subpoena while permitting a properly limited replacement.

“The revised subpoena will be quashed without prejudice to the right of the Grand Jury to issue another subpoena which is limited in accordance with the principles set forth herein.”

In Brady, Miller distinguished litigation lacking substantial justification from conduct undertaken in bad faith.

“Considering all the facts and circumstances in this case, this court declines to find that the conduct of the plaintiff in maintaining the action was in bad faith.”

Signed rulings

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

Turco v. Maryland
· 1971-03-03
Habeas corpus (petitioner) Denied

“For the above reasons, the petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 is denied.”

Removal petition (petitioner) Denied

“Accordingly, the petition for removal under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1443 is denied.”

United States v. Philpot
· 1972-07-31
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Ordered that the motion to dismiss by defendant Philpot be, and the same is hereby, granted.”

United States v. Jackson
· 1976-03-03
Motion to reduce sentence (defendant) Granted

“For all these reasons, the motion of James Earl Jackson for reduction of sentence is hereby GRANTED, and the sentence shall be revised to provide that the defendant be committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative for imprisonment for a term of six years.”

Superior Metal Moulding Co. v. Shipp
· 1977-08-01
Bankruptcy appeal (objecting creditor) Granted

“The Order of December 21, 1976, denying the objection must be vacated and the case remanded.”

Loney v. Carr-Lowrey Glass Co.
· 1978-09-26
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“That defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Title VII claims is granted.”

Yerkie v. Post-Newsweek Stations, Michigan, Inc.
· 1979-04-09
Summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“The defendants’ motion will be denied.”

McKelvey v. Marriott Corp.
· 1980-03-31
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“the plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider the Dismissal of defendants Sparks and First Newport under Count I is DENIED.”

McKelvey v. Marriott Corp.
· 1980-04-01
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Partial Summary Judgment will be entered for all defendants as to acts alleged in paragraph 18; paragraph 19(a), (e), (j), (k), and (q); paragraph 20(a) and (b); paragraph 21(a), (b), and (c); and paragraph 22(b) and (c) of Count I of the Amended Complaint.”

Freeman v. Colonial Liquors, Inc.
· 1980-11-25
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED.”

Witten v. A.H. Smith & Co.
· 1984-05-16
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Denied

“That the Motion to Compel filed by the plaintiff regarding the issue of geographic scope of discovery be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.”

In re Grand Jury Investigation, Special Grand Jury No. II, September Term, 1983
· 1984-12-13
Motion to quash subpoena (witness) Granted

“The revised subpoena will be quashed without prejudice to the right of the Grand Jury to issue another subpoena which is limited in accordance with the principles set forth herein.”

Western World Insurance v. Harford Mutual Insurance
· 1985-01-28
Attorneys fees (Western World Insurance Co.) Granted

“That the request of the plaintiff, Western World, for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $7,731.75 be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No assigned historical dockets were returned, so no sampled case-mix description is available.

A historical record

Judge Miller 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.