Norman Harold Stahl
Judge Stahl no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Stahl decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He resists resolving fact-dependent limitations defenses on the pleadings. Where accrual turns on when an injury and its cause reasonably should have been discovered, he requires a developed record rather than treating the issue as suitable for dismissal.
“The statute of limitations issue cannot be decided fairly by reviewing a motion to dismiss.”
Procedural preferences
For preliminary relief, a prima facie merits showing is not enough. He requires the moving party to establish a substantial likelihood of success together with the other equitable factors before issuing the extraordinary remedy.
“Presenting a prima facie case is not enough to warrant the issuance of the extraordinary remedy that plaintiffs seek.”
Cautions
He enforces arbitration provisions incorporated into commercial agreements and charges a party with terms that ordinary diligence would have revealed, even when the party says it never obtained the referenced document.
“the parties to a contract are chargeable with such knowledge that the exercise of ordinary diligence would have revealed.”
When summary judgment disposes of every federal claim before trial, he declines to retain pendent state-law claims rather than deciding them without an independent federal jurisdictional basis.
“Without those claims, this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the pendent state law issues raised in plaintiff’s complaint.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the Court grants petitioner’s request for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.”
“Accordingly, defendant James Dillon’s motion to stay these proceedings ... (document no. 14) is granted.”
“The statute of limitations issue cannot be decided fairly by reviewing a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss (document no. 5) is denied.”
“Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion (document no. 6) is denied.”
“Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss (document no. 6) is granted.”
“Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss count I of the complaint (document no. 8) is granted.”
“the Magistrate recommended that this Court deny plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. ... Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate’s October 22, 1990, Report and Recommendation, with modifications consistent with the discussion contained herein.”
“For the reasons stated hereinabove, defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. #4) is granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“Accordingly, defendant’s motion to transfer is hereby granted.”
“For the reasons stated herein, defendant David Carl Bruce’s motion to suppress is denied.”
“Accordingly, because plaintiff has failed to show that the denial of the requested order will lead to irreparable harm, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary and permanent injunctions must be and herewith is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The available historical slice contains twenty cases filed during Stahl's first two months on the district court. It includes government debt-recovery actions, civil-rights cases, insurance, copyright, contract, banking, welfare, personal-injury, and product-liability matters. Because the slice is oldest-first and its sampled entry streams are empty, it is a narrow early-tenure snapshot rather than a career-wide caseload measure.
A historical record
Judge Stahl 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.