Maryanne Trump Barry

How Judge Barry rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1983–2023
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
1983-10-07
Education
Mount Holyoke College, B.A., 1958; Columbia University, M.A., 1962; Hofstra University School of Law, J.D., 1974
Signed orders read
18

How Judge Barry decides

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

What persuades

In the reviewed patent dispute, prolonged silence after notice of industry activity supported both laches and equitable estoppel where the opposing party reasonably relied on the apparent abandonment of enforcement.

“Zimmer unreasonably and inexcusably delayed in enforcing its patent against Stryker and Stryker was materially prejudiced by that delay. Moreover, Zimmer affirmatively misled Stryker into believing that Zimmer had abandoned its patent and Stryker relied to its detriment on this affirmatively misleading conduct.”

Procedural preferences

A securities complaint sounding in fraud had to identify supporting contemporaneous facts; a boilerplate assertion that information rested only with defendants did not satisfy the particularity requirement.

“That boilerplate language alone, however, is insufficient.”

Cautions

In the reviewed forged-check dispute, illegible endorsements prevented a bank from invoking the fictitious-payee defense as to most checks, leaving those claims for further proceedings.

“Summary judgment as to the seventy-six checks containing illegible indorsements must, therefore, be denied.”

Signed rulings

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

Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America v. Weisman
96-1141 (MTB) · 1998-03-06
Summary judgment (bank defendants) Granted in part

“For the reasons discussed above, defendants’ motion for summary judgment/partial summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part as to Midlantie and granted, as unopposed, as to the remaining mov-ants.”

DeGregorio v. American Board of Internal Medicine
92-4924 (MTB) · 1994-01-18
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be and hereby is granted.”

Ramadan v. Chase Manhattan Corp.
96-3791 (MTB) · 1997-04-29
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“For the reasons discussed herein, defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is hereby granted.”

Schenck v. Kloster Cruise Ltd.
92-28 (MTB) · 1992-07-28
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Summary judgment will be granted in favor of Kloster.”

Greenhut v. Hand
96-5354 (MTB) · 1998-02-25
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to Counts One and Two of her complaint be and hereby is granted;”

Hines v. Irvington Counseling Center
95-1342 (MTB) · 1996-01-23
Motions to dismiss (federal defendants) Granted

“ORDERED that plaintiffs complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursüant Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).”

American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. NOS Communications, Inc.
92-4172 (MTB) · 1993-03-05
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on Counts I and III of the complaint is denied.”

Kreuzburg v. Computer Sciences Corp.
85-5580 · 1987-04-16
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The court will enter an order granting CSC’s motion for summary judgment.”

Eaton Corp. v. Maslym Holding Co.
95-5941 (MTB) · 1996-06-28
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that there is no personal jurisdiction over defendants, and the ease is dismissed.”

Church of Human Potential, Inc. v. Vorsky
85-3824 · 1986-02-24
Motions to dismiss (respondent) Granted

“this court must grant respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition to quash the third party summons for want of jurisdiction.”

United States v. Koreh
89-2544 (MTB) · 1992-09-18
Appeal of magistrate order (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED, that the May 11, 1992 ruling of the Magistrate-Judge is affirmed in its entirety.”

Pryzbowski v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc.
97-3097 (MTB) · 1999-09-08
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Counts Six, Eight and Ten.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The twenty oldest located exact-name assignments were all terminated matters filed from 1984 through 1987. They included patent, contract, civil-rights, environmental, Social Security, personal-injury, insurance, and government cases. This historical slice is not the judge's full district docket.

A historical record

Judge Barry 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.