Sharion Aycock
How Judge Aycock rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Aycock
Sharion Aycock is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Aycock received a commission on October 22, 2007. Judge Aycock assumed senior status on April 15, 2025.
Judge Aycock's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Aycock's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Aycock decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Withers v. City of Aberdeen, Aycock disbelieved attorney Wilson's claim that she had not known AI tools could fabricate legal citations. The court considered her conduct in the sanction proceeding, including continued unverified AI use after the problem surfaced.
“For these reasons, the Court disbelieves Wilson's claim of ignorance of the risks associated with using AI in the legal context.”
A party cannot rely on a contract's warranty provision for an express-warranty claim while challenging that same contract's validity to avoid an implied-warranty disclaimer.
“The City cannot rely on the contract for one claim and challenge its validity in support of another claim.”
Evidence that a contracting party may have contributed to the failure of a payment condition, including by favoring a new priority customer, can create jury questions on contract and good-faith theories.
“Overall, there exists a jury question of whether Hey Dude diverted the overlapping inventory from RMS’ customers in order to satisfy its new priority customer—Academy.”
In one employment retaliation case, the court denied defendants’ summary judgment motion after they offered no legal authority for their standing argument and the employee supplied a conflicting sworn account.
“They have not filed a Memorandum and have cited no legal authority to support their position.”
Procedural preferences
In Withers v. City of Aberdeen, Aycock assessed the attorneys' roles in tainted filings separately. She found that a sponsoring local attorney violated his duties by signing without adequate review, while stating she had no reason to believe he acted in bad faith.
“the Court finds that he too violated his duties as a sponsoring resident attorney pursuant to this Court's Local Rules... the Court has no reason to believe that he acted in bad faith.”
Cautions
In Disability Rights Mississippi v. Palmer Home for Children, Aycock sanctioned counsel for fabricated citations and quotations. She explained that deciding the issue did not require a finding that attorney Martin had used AI to create the filings.
“the Court need not make any finding as to whether Martin actually used AI to generate the fictitious case citations and fake quotes or to draft any portion of the filings to make a determination on the present issue.”
A firm's adoption of an AI-use policy does not mitigate repeated citation failures when its supervisors do not enforce the policy or determine the full extent of the affected filings.
“the Firm was on notice of Ms. Watson's unverified AI usage in March of 2025, and its failure to adequately address the issue has resulted in a flood of tainted filings throughout this State.”
In Harrison v. Houchens Food Group, Aycock denied a motion to alter or amend judgment because Harrison offered no newly discovered evidence, manifest error, or argument that could not have been raised before judgment.
“Harrison’s Motion [49] fails to present newly discovered evidence, identify manifest errors of law or fact, or raise arguments that could not have been raised prior to judgment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
After a show-cause process, Aycock sanctioned counsel for filing memoranda with fabricated case citations and quotations. Acting on the court’s own initiative, she ordered counsel to pay the opposing party’s fees and costs and complete a continuing legal education course. The order also directed notice to other judges and the state bar.
“The Court finds that, through their own admissions, all four attorneys failed to verify the legal authorities cited in their respective filings in violation of Rule 11 ... Sanctions ... are warranted as to them all.”
“the Court first finds it appropriate to disqualify all three attorneys and their respective firms from further representation of Billups in this case.”
“Ms. Watson and Mr. Watson's respective Motions to Withdraw as Counsel [76, 78] are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Evoqua’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [101] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The City’s breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. The City may proceed with its negligence claim.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Hey Dude’s Motion for Summary Judgment [73] is GRANED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and HELD IN ABEYANANCE IN PART.”
“Hey Dude’s Partial Motion to Dismiss [46] is denied as MOOT.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Harrison’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment [49] is DENIED. This CASE remains CLOSED.”
“Nothing in his present filing provides the basis for the extraordinary relief he now seeks. The Motion [148] is DENIED. This case remains closed.”
“Her present desire to transfer an inherently flawed, now-closed case is not well-taken. The Motion [10] is DENIED. The case remains closed.”
“Her desire to transfer an inherently flawed, now-closed case is not well-taken. The Motion [11] is DENIED. The case remains closed.”
“the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [31] is DENIED.”
“Shelter’s Motion for Summary Judgment [32] is GRANTED.”
“the State’s motion to dismiss will be granted, and the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed with prejudice and without evidentiary hearing as untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- As a senior judge since April 2025, she continues to carry an active caseload including Social Security appeals, civil-rights and employment suits, prisoner habeas petitions, insurance and construction-contract disputes, and general civil litigation across the Aberdeen, Greenville, and Oxford divisions.
- The sample now spans both her recent sanctions practice and a broad cross-section of ordinary dispositive-motion rulings.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, not for Judge Aycock: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 563 | 7.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 121 | 2.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 199 | 4.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 242 | 11.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 1 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 563 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 734 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 761 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 640 | 10.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 592 | 10.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 633 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 567 | 9 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Aycock with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Aycock, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Aycock's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace