Bruce Marion Van Sickle
Judge Sickle no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Sickle decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Van Sickle required more than unsupported assertions to resist a properly supported summary-judgment motion.
“Sheyenne’s unsupported assertion that it is a job shop, especially in light of its President’s testimony to the contrary, does not meet its burden and will not defeat summary judgment on this point.”
He treated procedural due process as requiring notice and a meaningful chance to contest federal farm-loan servicing decisions.
“This court concludes that the language of the permanent injunction is inadequate to insure FmHA borrowers’ rights in ‘normal income security’ or farm production income are protected as guaranteed by the due process clause of the fifth amendment.”
Procedural preferences
Van Sickle expected concise, relevant briefing and warned that repetition did not improve an argument.
“First, the sheer number of pages in a brief have little relation to its effectiveness. A cogent argument made once need not be repeated.”
He treated expert attacks concerning mistakes and professional currency as matters of evidentiary weight rather than admissibility.
“All of these arguments go to the weight rather than to the admissibility of Dr. Thoman’s testimony.”
Cautions
At the pleading stage, Van Sickle accepted factual allegations as true before deciding whether any legal theory survived.
“For purposes of this motion, this court must accept the allegations of the complaint as true.”
He was reluctant to impose a late-requested defense obligation after discovery and pretrial preparation had already concluded.
“Under these circumstances, it is best to deny the request for declaratory judgment as to Dyna Jet’s obligation to defend and allow counsel to raise it anew following trial.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PETITION IS DENIED.”
“Therefore, it is ordered that the motion for summary judgment is, in all things, GRANTED, and the action and complaint in this matter are hereby ordered DISMISSED.”
“1). The motion of Midwest Processing Company to withdraw reference to the Bankruptcy Court of the motion for judgment under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i) is denied.”
“2). The motion of Basin Electric Power Cooperative for oral argument on the motion is denied.”
“THAT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION REQUESTING TO FILE A RESPONSE BRIEF IS DENIED.”
“That the August 8, 1984 order of the Bankruptcy Court is reversed.”
“That the July 19, 1984 order of the Bankruptcy Court is reversed.”
“IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Partial Summary Judgment Motion (Docket No’s. 36, 37 & 38) IS: GRANTED on the issue of liability of Defendant under the Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C.”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment concerning plaintiffs’ claims for damages for pain and suffering and for punitive damages be granted. All other motions concerning the matters raised by the defendants are denied.”
“The motions for summary judgment and for dismissal brought by the individual defendants are denied.”
“The motion for dismissal brought by the institutional defendants is denied.”
“Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied.”
“3) that Tenneco’s motion for summary judgment as to Dyna Jet’s duty to defend is DENIED without prejudice; Tenneco’s motion for summary judgment is in all other respects DENIED; and”
“4) that Dyna Jet’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“2) that Dyna Jet’s motion to certify the question at issue to the North Dakota Supreme Court is DENIED;”
“1) . Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“2) . The claims of Floyd Mattson, Arbadella G. Brandner, and Dorothy L. Roy are remanded to the Secretary for further proceedings consistent with this order. 3) . Plaintiffs shall show, cause, if any there be, why the claim of Plaintiff Laurie M. Crevier should not be dismissed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The twenty reviewed decisions cover varied litigation but do not establish the distribution of Van Sickle’s full caseload.
A historical record
Judge Sickle 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.