Frank William Bullock Jr.

How Judge Bullock rules, drawn from 40 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Position
district
Status
Retired 2006
Served
1982–2006
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
1982-12-10
Education
University of North Carolina, B.S. (1961); University of North Carolina School of Law, LL.B. (1963)
Signed orders read
40

How Judge Bullock decides

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

What persuades

In ActiveX America, Bullock weighed irreparable harm, comparative hardship, likely success, and the public interest before entering a limited false-advertising injunction.

“the likelihood of success on the merits on Plaintiffs false advertising claim favored the Plaintiff; and that the public interest favored truth in advertising, thus promoting fair and vigorous competition in the marketplace.”

Procedural preferences

In Stocker, Bullock noted that local briefing rules permit summary denial of an unsupported motion, although he exercised discretion to reach the motion there.

“A motion unaccompanied by a brief may be summarily denied.”

Cautions

In Taylor v. Potter, Bullock enforced the ninety-day filing period after the plaintiff did not substantiate a later receipt date for the agency notice.

“Plaintiff failed to file her complaint within ninety days of receipt of the EEOC right-to-sue letter.”

Signed rulings

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

Alphatronix, Inc. v. Pinnacle Micro, Inc.
· 1993-01-15
Motions to dismiss (Pinnacle Micro, Inc.) Granted

“For the reasons. discussed herein, Pinnacle’s motion to dismiss Alphatronix’ declaratory judgment action will be granted. Accordingly, Alphatronix’ motion to consolidate the two actions is moot.”

Motion to consolidate (Alphatronix, Inc.) Moot / procedural
DP Environmental Services, Inc. v. Bertlesen
· 1993-07-28
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to compel and Plaintiffs motion for sanctions are DENIED.”

Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Denied
Motions to dismiss (Universal Filter-Air Systems, Inc.) Granted

“For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously herewith, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Universal Filter-Air Systems, Inc.’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this civil action is hereby DISMISSED.”

Solomon v. Duke University
· 1993-12-10
Motion to confirm arbitration award (Duke University) Granted

“The court will therefore grant Defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration decision.”

Motions to dismiss (Duke University) Granted

“Defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award will be granted, and Plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed.”

Summary judgment (Duke University) Moot / procedural

“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will therefore be dismissed as moot.”

Nelms v. Ross Stores, Inc.
· 1994-01-20
Summary judgment (Ross Stores defendants) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

CBP Resources, Inc. v. Ingredient Resource Corp.
· 1996-04-05
Motions to dismiss (Feed Products and Service Company, Inc.) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Feed Products and Service Company, Ine.’s motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.”

United States Ex Rel. J. Bobby Currin & Sons v. J & W Builders, Inc.
· 1996-12-13
Summary judgment (Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company) Granted

“Therefore, Defendant Hartford’s motion for summary judgment will be granted and Plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.”

Gwyn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
· 1997-01-30
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for remand be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and this action is REMANDED to the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Forsyth County, North Carolina.”

Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Denied

“In her reply brief, Gwyn asks this court to award her the actual costs, including attorney’s fees, incurred as a result of Defendant’s removal of this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(a), Such an award is within the discretion of the court, but there is no evidence that removal was done in bad faith or without a reasonable basis. Accordingly, the court will not award costs' or attorney’s fees to Plaintiff.”

Research Triangle Institute v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
· 1997-02-14
Motions to dismiss (Federal Reserve defendants) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss [# 5] is GRANTED, and this civil action be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED.”

Trexler v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
· 1997-03-04
Motions to dismiss (railroad defendants) Denied

“Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be denied and Plaintiff’s motion to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1447 will be granted in its entirety. Plaintiffs request for costs and attorney’s fees will be denied.”

Motions to remand (plaintiff employee) Granted
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff employee) Denied
S & D Coffee, Inc. v. Gei Autowrappers
· 1997-10-20
Motions to dismiss (GEI Autowrappers) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the court will (1) deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on improper venue, and (2) deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens.”

Harter v. Vernon
· 1997-11-05
Motion for reconsideration (defendant sheriff) Granted

“This court granted the motion and on October 1, 1997, heard oral argument on the matter.”

Summary judgment (defendant sheriff) Granted

“the court now finds that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to these claims.”

McKiver v. General Electric Co.
· 1997-12-04
Summary judgment (General Electric) Granted

“The court will thus grant summary judgment for Defendant on all claims.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The five sampled terminated matters included an insurance dispute, a disability-benefits case, and three matters without a recorded case-type label. Electronic entry timelines were unavailable for motion or timing analysis.

A historical record

Judge Bullock 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.