Walter Louis Nixon Jr.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi district Retired 1989 · served 1968–1989 Appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic) 21 signed orders read

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

How Judge Nixon decides

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

What persuades

Nixon enforced an indemnity provision when its text clearly covered the claimed loss.

“The language is clear and unambiguous and is a contract for Clearview to indemnify South Central Bell for injuries such as those sustained by Mr. Lorenzen”

Nixon required more than a speculative possibility of recurring misconduct before granting forward-looking injunctive relief.

“some cognizable danger of recurrent violation, which is more than a mere possibility, must be present in order to compel further relief through the granting of an injunction”

Procedural preferences

Nixon applied strict construction when evaluating federal removal jurisdiction.

“the Court also recognizes the policy of strict construction against federal removal jurisdiction”

Nixon entered judgment from consistent jury interrogatory answers when they conflicted with the general verdict.

“The Court finds that the jury’s answers to the interrogatories are consistent with each other, but inconsistent with the verdict against Hayden.”

Signed rulings

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

Giles v. Roadway Express, Inc.
· 1981-05-07
Motion to dismiss counterclaims (employee) Granted

“the Motion is well taken, and therefore all counterclaims of the Defendant must be dismissed”

Herrington v. Mississippi Regional Medical Center
· 1981-05-06
Motion to amend judgment (employee) Denied

“the plaintiff’s Motion to Correct and Amend the Judgment is denied.”

Motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict (hospital officials) Granted

“The defendants’ Motion for Judgment in Accordance with the Answers to Interrogatories, or Alternatively, for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is granted.”

Bonner v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
· 1981-05-06
Motions to dismiss (platform owner) Granted

“Chevron’s motion is well taken and should be sustained.”

Lorenzen v. South Central Bell Telephone Co.
· 1982-08-12
Summary judgment (telephone company) Granted

“South Central Bell’s claim is meritorious, and its Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.”

Summary judgment (cable company) Denied

“Clearview’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied”

McCarty v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
· 1980-11-21
Summary judgment (asbestos plaintiffs) Denied

“the Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment based upon collateral estoppel is without merit, and will be denied.”

Burris v. South Central Bell Telephone Co.
· 1982-04-15
Summary judgment (telephone-company employee) Granted

“defendant Carr’s Motion for Summary Judgment is well taken and is hereby granted.”

Summary judgment (telephone company) Granted

“South Central Bell is likewise entitled to summary judgment on this question.”

Sealand Terminal Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
· 1976-06-09
Motion for injunctive relief (terminal operator) Denied

“Sealand’s Motion for Injunctive Relief will be denied”

Summary judgment (federal agency) Granted

“the N.L.R.B.’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.”

Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance
· 1973-11-16
Summary judgment (life insurer) Granted

“the defendant is entitled to and will be granted a Summary Judgment”

Moore v. Sentry Insurance Company
· 1975-09-17
Summary judgment (insurer) Granted

“the Court finds well taken and hereby grants Sentry’s Motion for Summary Judgment”

Ogden v. United States
· 1975-10-29
Motions to dismiss (United States) Granted

“Having no jurisdiction of the causes of action presented by the consolidated cases under consideration, the Court finds that it must dismiss them.”

Motions to strike (taxpayers) Moot / procedural

“plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is rendered moot”

Sherwood v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply District
· 1969-03-19
Motions to dismiss (water district) Granted

“The motion of the defendant to dismiss will therefore be granted.”

Akin Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development
· 1972-10-06
Motions to dismiss (federal housing officials) Granted

“the Motion of the Defendants to Dismiss will be granted.”

Motion for leave to amend (mobile-home company) Granted

“The plaintiff moved and will be granted permission to amend his Complaint”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The reviewed opinions span employment, insurance, tort, tax, banking, maritime, benefits, habeas, and administrative disputes. No historical docket timelines were available for broader caseload or timing analysis.

A historical record

Judge Nixon 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.