Robert Dorsey Watkins
How Judge Watkins rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Watkins no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Watkins decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hellmuth, Watkins treated the interstate compact as controlling over a later unilateral state disclosure rule.
“Maryland may not unilaterally subject WMATA to the provisions of Art. 76A, if indeed that is the portent of the Act.”
In Clarke, Watkins required the disability record to be evaluated as a whole while still applying substantial-evidence review.
“the Court on review must make a ‘searching investigation’ of the entire record to determine if substantial evidence for the Secretary’s decision does exist.”
In Wujek, Watkins rejected constructive notice where detecting the hidden defect would have required an impractical board-by-board inspection.
“The complete impracticability of any such procedure, and the certainty that the ship would not hire and pay a stevedore for the time necessary for such inspection, is clear.”
Procedural preferences
In Merck, Watkins emphasized that summary judgment should await factual development when the legal application could benefit from a fuller record.
“it should be granted only where it is perfectly clear that no issue of fact is involved and inquiry into the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of law.”
In Sperry Rand, Watkins allowed intervention because the applicant had a distinct interest and its participation could prevent later preclusion disputes.
“Its interests will not adequately be protected by the other parties.”
In Thomas, Watkins declined interlocutory review where the evidentiary ruling would not materially advance resolution of the case.
“nor does the court see how its answer by interlocutory appeal would ‘materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation’.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby DENIED;”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby GRANTED;”
“The complaint is dismissed with prejudice, and with costs.”
“the lack of diversity, coupled with the lack of admiralty jurisdiction renders this Court without subject matter jurisdiction and the complaint must be dismissed.”
“The libel will be dismissed as to respondent Elder Dempster, with leave to file an amended libel within thirty days.”
“An order will be entered affirming the decision.”
“On June 21, 1971, this court granted the motion to dismiss of defendant Eastern Freight Ways, Inc.”
“Accordingly, on June 29, 1971, the Union’s prayer that the complaint be dismissed was granted.”
“The court directs that final judgment be entered for the plaintiff. The court will sign an appropriate permanent injunction on presentation.”
“this court finds that there is no genuine dispute between the parties as to any material fact, and that the plaintiff, Head Ski Company, Incorporated (Head Ski) is entitled to judgment against the United States as a matter of law.”
“That the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be, and the same is, hereby DENIED;”
“Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment is granted, and plaintiff’s Motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied.”
“This motion of course becomes moot in view of the dismissal of the action.”
“The proposed amended complaint would have added a Third Cause of Ac*1179tion, claiming General Counsel Compensation and expenses in the amount of $18,023.70 for the period June 1, 1966 to January 9, 1967. This is clearly subject to the same infirmities as the original complaint and leave to file the amended complaint is hereby denied.”
“Ordered that Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. be and it hereby is permitted to intervene in the above ease as to Patent No. 2,629,827 conditioned upon said intervenor being bound by all Orders heretofore entered herein and all discovery heretofore had in this case; and excluding from said intervention the prayer that this court declare John V. Atanasoff to be a joint inventor of such patent and order a corresponding correction of said patent.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No indexed assigned dockets were returned, so no sampled case mix is reported.
A historical record
Judge Watkins 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.