Dennis Francis Donovan

How Judge Donovan rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Donovan 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 Minnesota
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1945–1974
Appointed by
Harry S. Truman (Democratic)
Commissioned
1945-07-18
Education
University of Michigan Law School (LL.B., 1913)
Signed orders read
28

How Judge Donovan decides

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

Cautions

Donovan described new trials as exceptional relief to be used sparingly in furtherance of substantial justice.

“a motion for a new trial should be granted cautiously and sparingly and only in the furtherance of substantial justice.”

In considering temporary injunctive relief, he focused on whether the alleged loss was truly irreparable.

“The file in the instant case does not indicate loss and inconvenience to be so considerable as to be irreparable”

Signed rulings

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

Ellis v. United States District Court
· 1965-01-25
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (petitioner) Granted

“The petition to proceed in forma pauperis is granted insofar as the petition *213'lodged with the Court may be filed without the payment of any fee.”

Motion under section 2255 (petitioner) Denied

“Otherwise, the petition seeking relief from an allegedly improper conviction is denied.”

Ospina v. Vanelli
· 1964-01-08
Motion to quash service (defendants) Denied

“Plaintiff has followed the procedure of the State court and the motion should be denied.”

Purcell v. United States
· 1965-05-03
Motions to dismiss (third-party defendant insurer) Denied

“For the above reasons the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint is denied.”

United States v. Great Northern Railway Co.
· 1963-07-19
Summary judgment (defendant railroad) Granted in part

“For the above reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted with the exception that judgment shall be granted to plaintiff in the amount of $22.29 for the overcharge on the direct shipment, Commodity Credit Corporation Claim No. 1-MP-20427.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff United States) Granted in part
Nace v. United States
· 1964-03-14
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (petitioner) Granted

“The petition to file this motion in forma pauperis is granted insofar as the motion may be filed without payment of any fee.”

Motion under section 2255 (petitioner) Denied

“Otherwise, said motion is denied.”

Barkdoll v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
· 1964-12-04
Motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict (defendant Sears) Denied

“The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is denied.”

Motion for new trial (defendant Sears) Denied

“The motion for a new trial is denied.”

Ellis v. United States
· 1964-08-13
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“there is no occasion for the issuance of the writ sought by petitioner and the petition is denied.”

Johnson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad
· 1964-02-19
Motions to transfer (defendant railroad) Denied

“Motion for change of venue is denied.”

Motion to produce (plaintiff) Denied

“The motion to produce is denied.”

United States v. Northern City National Bank
· 1964-06-30
Application to enforce summons (plaintiff United States) Granted

“The application for enforcement of summons is granted and the order to show cause heretofore issued on October 25, 1963 is discharged.”

Richard v. Celebrezze
· 1965-11-12
Social security appeal (plaintiff claimant) Denied

“The decision of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare ought to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.”

Thiele Engineering Co. v. Weldon Farm Products, Inc.
· 1963-10-10
Motions to dismiss (third-party defendant Fort Worth Steel & Machinery Company) Granted

“the motion of Fort Worth Steel & Machinery Company for a dismissal must be granted and the complaint dismissed without prejudice, however, for lack of jurisdiction.”

Hain v. United States
· 1963-07-27
Tort claim (plaintiff) Granted

“It is my opinion that he should be awarded damages, all inclusive in the sum of $8,000.00.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No representative assigned case-level electronic docket sample is available for Donovan's historical tenure. The publication-selected decisions do not establish his complete caseload mix or case duration.

A historical record

Judge Donovan 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.