Richard Cannon Erwin

How Judge Erwin rules, drawn from 45 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Erwin 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
Deceased
Served
1980–2006
Appointed by
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Commissioned
1980-09-30
Education
Johnson C. Smith University, B.A. (1947); Howard University School of Law, LL.B. (1951)
Signed orders read
45

How Judge Erwin decides

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

What persuades

In Slaughter, Erwin balanced the national organ-supply concern against North Carolina's interest in protecting recipients when sustaining personal jurisdiction.

“the state has an equally strong, if not stronger interest, in protecting the life and health of its citizens.”

Procedural preferences

In Basic Machinery, Erwin kept transactionally related claims together where doing so served judicial economy and party convenience.

“Hence, judicial economy and convenience to the parties will be served by hearing the claims in one forum.”

Cautions

In Cannon, Erwin enforced the federal limitations period despite a state procedural step that purported to extend filing time.

“such attempted extension was ineffective, and the complaint was not timely filed.”

Signed rulings

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

Hunter Douglas Inc. v. SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERN. ASSOCIATION
· 1982-12-21
Summary judgment (plaintiff employer) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, the court denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and denies defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees.”

Summary judgment (defendant union) Granted
Motion for attorney fees (defendant union) Denied
Felts v. Bishop (In Re Winstead)
· 1983-09-30
Bankruptcy appeal (appellant Felts) Granted

“The court will enter an order simultaneously herewith reversing and remanding the case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”

Andrews v. Patterson
· 1984-05-16
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The court is of the opinion that the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be granted.”

Vernon v. United States
· 1984-06-13
Petition for review of tax assessment (plaintiff taxpayer) Denied

“The Government has met its burden in this case. Evidence indicating Mr. Vernon’s involvement in illegal drug activities, the amounts of cash and drugs found in the plaintiffs’ home, the small amounts of income previously reported by the taxpayer, and the evidence of major cash purchases indicate that the plaintiff was earning income from illegal activity and failing to report that income. Under the circumstances, the making of the termination assessment was reasonable. The taxpayer has the burden of proving that the amount of the assessment is inappropriate under the circumstances. 26 U.S.C. § 7429(g)(2). In the instant case, Mr. Vernon failed to produce any evidence which would establish that his income for the terminated period was less than the amount assessed by the IRS. Therefore, the court concludes the amount assessed against Mr. Vernon is appropriate under the circumstances. The court will enter judgment dismissing this action in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion.”

United States v. Tugwell
· 1984-11-21
Summary judgment (United States) Denied

“This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court is of the opinion that defendant’s motion- should be granted and plaintiff’s motion should be denied.”

Summary judgment (defendant purchaser) Granted
Cooper v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc.
· 1985-03-14
Summary judgment (hospital and physician defendants) Granted

“Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the summary judgment motions of defendants Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc., its Trustees and Bylaws Committee; individual defendants Pollock, Tomberlin, Hayes, Rose, Underdal, Bittinger, and Jennings; and defendant North Carolina Orthopedic Association, Inc. are GRANTED.”

Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff podiatrists) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.”

Motions to strike (defendants) Moot / procedural

“In view of the court’s rulings, defendants’ motion to strike is denied as moot.”

North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Inc. v. Howell (In Re Howell)
· 1985-08-01
Bankruptcy appeal (appellant hospital) Denied

“the order of the bankruptcy court should be affirmed.”

United States v. Hayes
· 1986-04-25
Summary judgment (United States) Granted

“Therefore, the Government’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”

Longiotti v. United States
· 1986-06-05
Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff taxpayers) Denied

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED, and the Government’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED pursuant to Rule 56(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Summary judgment (United States) Granted
Gallagher v. Duke University
· 1986-06-30
Summary judgment (Duke University and clinic defendants) Denied

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motions for summary judgment by Duke and the Clinic are DENIED.”

Motions to dismiss (Duke University and clinic defendants) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ motions to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs John and Kimberly Gallagher are DENIED.”

Motions to dismiss (Duke University and clinic defendants) Granted

“Finally, IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ motions to dismiss the claim of plaintiff Lisa Gallagher are GRANTED. A Judgment reflecting this holding and dismissing this claim with prejudice will be filed contemporaneously herewith.”

benMIRIAM v. Office of Personnel Management
· 1986-11-07
Motions to dismiss (United States) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Cannon v. Kroger Co.
· 1986-11-07
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED. A Judgment dismissing this action with prejudice will be filed contemporaneously herewith.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

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

A historical record

Judge Erwin 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.