George E. Woods

How Judge Woods rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Position
district
Status
Retired 2004
Served
1983–2004
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
1983-11-16
Education
Detroit College of Law (J.D., 1949)
Signed orders read
15

How Judge Woods decides

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

What persuades

The court enforced an inspector-general subpoena after finding that the requested information fit the agency's investigation and imposed no demonstrated abuse or undue burden.

“the subpoena is not too indefinite, and seeks reasonably relevant information”

Procedural preferences

The court compelled arbitration of securities claims because the account agreements covered the dispute and the regulatory language did not create a right to litigate.

“the weight of authority favors compelling the arbitration of federal securities law claims”

Cautions

The court rejected a contractor's claim against the site owner where tank dismantling was not inherently dangerous and the owner did not control the work.

“the dismantling of the tanks was not an inherently dangerous activity, and BASF retained no control over the work site”

Signed rulings

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

Geyer v. USX Corp.
· 1994-11-28
Summary judgment (cross- and third-party defendants) Granted in part

“For the above-stated reasons, cross- and third-party defendants' motion for summary judgment shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED as to cross- and third-party plaintiff's claim for contribution, shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED as to cross- and third-party plaintiff's claim for indemnification based on vicarious liability, but shall be, and hereby is, DENIED as to cross- and third-party plaintiff's claim for indemnification based on potential contractual obligation.”

In re First National Acceptance Co.
· 2000-02-03
Bankruptcy appeal (appellant First National) Denied

“Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court’s Order is AFFIRMED, and Appellant’s appeal is DENIED.”

Taylor v. DaimlerChrysler AG
· 2002-12-06
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED.”

United States v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield
· 1989-12-12
Motion to quash discovery (United States) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of the United States to quash discovery be GRANTED”

Request for evidentiary hearing (Blue Cross) Denied

“and that the request of Blue Cross for an evidentiary hearing be DENIED.”

Motion to quash or stay subpoena (Blue Cross) Denied

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of Blue Cross to quash or stay the administrative subpoena be DENIED”

Petition for subpoena enforcement (United States) Granted

“and that the petition of the United States for summary enforcement of the Inspector General subpoena be GRANTED.”

B & D Drywall Supply, Inc. v. Eyde Construction Co.
· 2001-02-12
Bankruptcy appeal (appellants) Denied

“For the reasons set forth above, this Court AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court’s July 12, 2000, Order granting summary judgment in favor of Eyde Construction Company; and thus this appeal is DISMISSED.”

Broom v. TRW Credit Data
· 1990-01-29
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.”

Pickard v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance
· 1987-07-13
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED as to Counts I (breach of contract) and III (wrongful refusal to pay benefits under the insurance policy)”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“and that defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED as to Counts I and III.”

Woolery v. Brady
· 1990-08-06
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that summary judgment is proper due to plaintiff’s failure to establish that defendant’s articulated reason for his non-selection was pretextual, and due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies with regard to the evaluations which underlay the non-selection.”

Matter of Pontiac Hotel Associates
· 1988-08-30
Bankruptcy appeal (appellant law firm) Granted in part

“The Bankruptcy Court’s Order is AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED for further findings consistent with this Opinion.”

Nemes v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
· 1990-06-28
Motion to compel arbitration and stay (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is GRANTED.”

United States v. Butler
· 1991-12-18
Motion to dismiss indictment (defendant) Denied

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant’s motion be DENIED”

Audi AG & Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Izumi
· 2002-05-23
Motion to quash summons and dismiss for improper service (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion to quash the summons and to dismiss for improper service pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5) shall be, and hereby is, DENIED”

Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) shall be, and hereby is, DENIED”

Motion to dismiss for improper venue (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406 shall be, and hereby is, DENIED”

Motions to transfer (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendant’s motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) shall be, and hereby is, DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Woods handled bankruptcy matters before his district-court appointment and later carried a general civil and criminal trial caseload in the Eastern District of Michigan. The contested outcomes described here come from his published district-court opinions.

A historical record

Judge Woods 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.