Horace Weldon Gilmore

How Judge Gilmore rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Gilmore 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 2010
Served
1980–2010
Appointed by
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Commissioned
1980-06-18
Education
University of Michigan (B.A., 1939); University of Michigan Law School (J.D., 1942)
Signed orders read
18

How Judge Gilmore decides

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

What persuades

The court suppressed evidence where officers verified only public facts about the suspect and did not corroborate the reported possession of firearms.

“merely verifying public information such as addresses ... and criminal records is not sufficient to corroborate an informant’s statement”

Procedural preferences

The court declined to withdraw default admissions after finding that the nonresponding parties had made a purposeful strategic choice rather than an excusable mistake.

“Defendants willfully, knowingly and intentionally did not respond”

Cautions

The court sent an antitrust tying claim forward where opposing experts offered materially different definitions of the relevant product market.

“There is substantial evidence produced by both sides in support of their version of market power. The expert opinions directly clash.”

Signed rulings

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

United States v. Simon (In re Burnham)
· 1995-03-09
Bankruptcy appeal (United States) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling disallowing the proof of claim of the Internal Revenue Service as untimely is reversed;”

United States v. Hazelton (In re Hazelton)
· 1988-09-16
Bankruptcy appeal (United States) Granted

“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the bankruptcy court’s order of April 11, 1988, be and is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED with directions that the bankruptcy court enter an amended ORDER in accordance with this this court’s ORDER.”

Bankruptcy cross appeal (debtor) Moot / procedural

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the debtor’s cross-appeal be and is hereby DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.”

United States v. Certain Real Property Located in Romulus
· 1997-04-21
Motion for reconsideration (Detroit Free Press) Denied

“Accordingly, based on the foregoing analysis, the Court DENIES the Detroit Free Press’ Motion for Reconsideration.”

May v. Jefferson Smurfit Corp. (U.S.)
· 1996-11-18
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Therefore, the court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the case is hereby dismissed.”

O'Neill v. Medad
· 1996-04-01
Motion to amend or withdraw admissions (defendants) Denied

“Accordingly, this Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Amend or Withdraw Admissions”

Motion to affirm admissions (plaintiff) Granted

“and GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to affirm admissions.”

Switzer v. Hayes Wheels International, Inc.
· 1997-09-11
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“Based on the foregoing, the court hereby DENIES PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND because Defendants properly removed this case based on Section 502(a) of ERISA.”

United States v. Bryant
· 1997-01-16
Motion to suppress (defendant) Granted

“Based on the foregoing, this Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements.”

Fournier v. PFS Investments, Inc.
· 1998-01-26
Application for attorney fees and costs (plaintiffs' counsel) Granted in part

“IT IS ORDERED that the attorneys shall receive $1,500,000, representing 20% of the settlement fund and that such percentage include all costs and those monies owed to attorneys Seymour and Kaufman as recommended by the Magistrate Judge.”

Northcrest Theatre, Inc. v. City of Rochester Hills
· 1989-04-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“In conclusion, this Court holds that Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge any part of the City’s zoning ordinance. The case is dismissed without prejudice.”

United States v. Brown
· 1997-11-25
Motion to dismiss indictment (defendant) Granted

“Because analysis of the relevant factors shows that Sixth Amendment was violated, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment is GRANTED.”

United States v. One 1990 GMC Jimmy, VIN 1GKEV18K4LF504365
· 1997-08-06
Summary judgment (United States) Granted

“Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment”

Motions to dismiss (claimant) Denied

“and DENIES Claimant’s Motion to Dismiss.”

Miss Dig System, Inc. v. Power Plus Engineering, Inc.
· 1996-11-04
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“In so doing, this court GRANTS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(a) and 1125(a) and DENIES PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(a) and 1125(a). Furthermore, this court DENIES SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS as to both Plaintiff and Defendants.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“this court GRANTS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(a) and 1125(a) and DENIES PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(a) and 1125(a).”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Gilmore carried a general civil and criminal trial caseload in the Eastern District of Michigan during active and senior service. The contested outcomes described here come from his published opinions.

A historical record

Judge Gilmore 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.