Morton Aaron Brody

United States District Court for the District of Maine district Appointed by George H. W. Bush (Republican) 18 signed orders read

How Judge Brody decides

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

What persuades

Brody treated an insured’s potential liability for its own negligence as a protectable interest under a builder’s risk policy.

“Because the Court now rules that a builder’s risk insurance policy protects an insured against his own negligence, Zurich’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied and GE’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”

Brody allowed a civil-rights medical-care claim to proceed where the pleaded facts could support involuntary confinement.

“Derboven’s Motion to Dismiss is denied because Plaintiff has raised sufficient facts from which the Court could conclude that Dobson may have been held at BMHI against her will, giving Dobson the substan-five due process right to receive proper medical care.”

Procedural preferences

Brody denied amendment when the proposed claims could not survive dismissal.

“a motion to amend will be denied as futile where the proposed amendments would not survive a motion to dismiss.”

Brody returned state negligence claims to state court while retaining the federal emergency-treatment claim.

“Plaintiffs negligence claims against Inland and Gretta are remanded to state court.”

Cautions

Brody rejected amendments that added no necessary theory even when they would not prejudice the opposing side.

“This amendment would not be prejudicial to Defendants, but the amendment is unnecessary and duplicative.”

Brody treated a signed consent form as decisive evidence supporting a second apartment search.

“the existence of a consent to search form signed by Defendant leads the Court to conclude that he voluntarily consented to a second search of his apartment yielding the hacksaw, Kmart receipt, and ammunition.”

Signed rulings

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

Hancock v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
· 1992-09-25
Motions to transfer (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to transfer is DENIED.”

Motions to dismiss (third-party defendant) Granted

“Third-Party Defendant’s Motion to dismiss the third-party complaint is GRANTED.”

Interstate Food Processing Corp. v. State of Me.
· 1993-06-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of justiciability is GRANTED.”

In Re Tardiff
· 1992-07-06
Bankruptcy appeal (debtor) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the bankruptcy court is VACATED and REMANDED.”

Weeks v. State of Me.
· 1994-12-20
Motions to dismiss (individual defendants) Denied

“The individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”

Abbott v. Bragdon
· 1995-07-25
Motion to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs Motion to Amend is denied.”

Gagnon v. Sullivan
· 1992-06-18
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of nine hundred seventy-five dollars ($975.00).”

United States v. J.R. LaPointe & Sons, Inc.
· 1996-12-30
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”

Bushey v. Derboven
· 1996-11-26
Motions to dismiss (Bangor Mental Health Institute) Granted

“BMHI’s Motion to Dismiss is granted because BMHI is a state agency and may not be sued for damages under § 1983.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant Derboven) Denied

“Derboven’s Motion to Dismiss is denied because Plaintiff has raised sufficient facts from which the Court could conclude that Dobson may have been held at BMHI against her will, giving Dobson the substan-five due process right to receive proper medical care.”

Hewett v. Inland Hospital
· 1999-02-03
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted in part

“For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint and GRANTED as to Count II.”

Motion to stay discovery (defendants) Denied

“Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery on Count I is DENIED.”

United States v. Dwelley
· 1999-08-03
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”

Belanger v. Healthsource of Maine
· 1999-09-15
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“III are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Count IV DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Boivin v. Merrill
· 1999-08-12
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff's counsel) Granted

“For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Tisdale’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and awards a fee of $3,892.50.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The twenty returned tenure dockets were all terminated. Six carried subject-matter labels: two motor-vehicle product-liability matters and one each involving environmental law, prisoner civil rights, negotiable instruments, and Social Security disability. Fourteen lacked a subject-matter label, and none carried a motion timeline.

Put Judge Brody's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Brody actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Brody's own signed orders and cites them.