Richard Everett Dorr
How Judge Dorr rules, drawn from 9 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Dorr no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Dorr decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Keil, Dorr allowed targeted discovery because the alleged arrest facts, if true, would not support a reasonable belief that the plaintiff was unlawfully present.
“No reasonable officer could have believed it lawful to arrest someone for being an illegal alien where the only relevant facts known to the officer were that the person 1) claimed to be a U.S. Citizen, and 2) possessed a facially valid U.S. Passport.”
Procedural preferences
In Earll, Dorr gave substantial weight to a valid forum-selection clause after considering party and witness convenience and the interests of justice.
“After considering the relevant factors, the Court finds transfer to the Northern District of California appropriate. While Earll may have some difficulty in traveling to California, the valid forum selection clause weighs heavily in favor of transfer.”
Cautions
In Ratliff, Dorr declined to expand Missouri liability beyond established state-law boundaries in a diversity action.
“Federal courts should not expand liability in diversity cases if the legal theory is ‘not well established.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Pending before the Court is a Motion to Stay Discovery by Defendants Glenn Triveline, Laura Foster, Michael Spinella, Todd Hamilton, and Jack Barnhart (the ‘individual defendants’) (Doc. 30). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion to Stay is DENIED in part (Doc. 30).”
“After careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 14).”
“The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Doc. 16) as moot.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendant Mentor Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (# 6). All claims pled in this case are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affidavit of Linda Hathaway (# 37)”
“The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#29)”
“DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (# 32).”
“Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions and Submissions (#44) is DENIED as moot.”
“ORDERED that Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.”
“Finally, Plaintiffs Motion for Local Rule 37.1(a)(2) Telephone Conference (Doc. 19) and all other pending motions in the above styled case are hereby DENIED as moot.”
“Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) on Plaintiffs Breach of Contract Claim (Count III), Quantum Meruit Claim (Count IV), and Unjust Enrichment Claim (Count V) is GRANTED.”
“As the Court has already granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED as MOOT.”
“Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, LP’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 84)”
“Defendant CoxHealth’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 85)”
“Separate Defendant Springfield-Greene County Health Department’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 88) are GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED (Doc. 90).”
Dorr's initial post-verdict order was superseded four days later by an amended order that also addressed the new-trial request.
“I therefore grant Mr. Johnson’s motion for an acquittal.”
“I conditionally deny Mr. Johnson’s motion for a new trial.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 323 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 137 days (N = 5).
A fixed-seed sample of ten terminated matters filed in August 2002 included disability-benefit, employment, prisoner, contract, and civil-rights proceedings.
A historical record
Judge Dorr 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.