John Watkins Oliver

How Judge Oliver rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1962–1990
Appointed by
John F. Kennedy (Democratic)
Commissioned
1962-04-03
Education
University of Missouri, A.B. (1933); University of Missouri School of Law, LL.B. (1936)
Signed orders read
25

How Judge Oliver decides

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

What persuades

In Public Water Supply District, Oliver enforced the parties’ agreed forum and returned the dispute to the court they had selected.

“relegate the parties to the forum in which they agreed to litigate.”

Procedural preferences

In Frank, Oliver distinguished the stricter acquittal standard from the court’s discretionary authority to order a new trial in the interest of justice.

“exercise our power to grant a new trial in the interest of justice.”

Cautions

In Price, Oliver emphasized that institutional procedures should prevent avoidable speedy-trial violations rather than depend on after-the-fact dismissal.

“The real remedy lies in designing and following procedures which will effectively prevent a repetition of the circumstances which occurred in this case.”

Signed rulings

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

Swisher v. Department of the Air Force
· 1980-09-03
Summary judgment motion (defendants) Granted

“defendants’ alternative motion for summary judgment in regard to the conclusions and recommendations and Social Security Account Numbers in the Report of Inquiry should be and hereby is granted.”

Motions to dismiss (defendants) Moot / procedural

“defendants’ motion to dismiss in regard to the conclusions and recommendations and Social Security Account Numbers in the Report of Inquiry should be and hereby is denied as moot.”

Summary judgment motion (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment in regard to the conclusions and recommendations and Social Security Account Numbers in the Report of Inquiry should be and hereby is denied.”

Croney v. Swenson
· 1967-07-27
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“the petition be, and is hereby, denied.”

McCasland v. Swenson
· 1967-08-07
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“petitioner’s second petition for writ of habeas corpus should be and is hereby dismissed without prejudice”

Harris v. Swenson
· 1967-10-23
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“the petition for habeas corpus be, and is hereby, dismissed without prejudice.”

Griffin v. Elliott
· 1968-07-16
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (plaintiffs) Denied

“this order denying leave to commence an action pursuant to Section 1915, Title 28, United States Code”

Midwest Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Byrne
· 1968-09-03
Summary judgment motion (defendant) Granted

“defendant’s motion for summary judgment be, and is hereby, granted.”

White v. Wilson
· 1969-05-06

The cached text is only a short introductory fragment referring to a related habeas case and does not contain a disposition suitable for classification.

United States v. Silvio
· 1970-08-25
Summons enforcement claim (United States) Granted

“Anthony T. Civella shall obey the aforesaid summonses”

Stevens v. Ciccone
· 1971-04-01
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed herein should be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.”

United States v. Barket
· 1974-10-25
Motion for extension of time (government) Denied

“the government’s motion for enlargement of time should be and the same is hereby denied.”

United States v. Barket
· 1974-12-16
Motion for reconsideration (government) Denied

“the government’s motion to reconsider, vacate, and set aside this Court’s orders of October 25, 1974 directing further proceedings as to defendant’s consolidated motions for discovery should be and the same is hereby denied.”

United States v. City National Bank & Trust Co.
· 1972-11-02
Warranty recovery claim (United States) Granted

“judgment be entered against defendant for the sum of $16,413.28, plus costs of this suit.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1237 days (N = 5).

Fifteen returned historical matters included statutory, contract, habeas, real-property, employment-benefits, government-recovery, civil-rights, and personal-injury cases. The five earliest-filed closed matters were used only for duration context because their timelines contained no entries.

A historical record

Judge Oliver 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.