Carl Andrew Weinman

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio district Retired 1979 · served 1959–1979 Appointed by Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican) 19 signed orders read

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

Signed rulings

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

Sacra v. Ruegg
· 1965-07-09
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“The Court has examined each of plaintiff’s contentions but finds that defendant’s motion should be and it hereby is sustained in its entirety.”

Motions to dismiss (defendants against plaintiff Paul Peters) Granted
Motions to dismiss (defendants against Wright Air Development Division Air Force Association) Granted
Ballantyne Instruments & Electronics, Inc. v. Wagner
· 1964-02-14
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is sustained and United States Letters Patent No. 2,778,736, and each claim thereof, is invalid.”

United States v. Moore
· 1969-03-07
Summary judgment (United States) Granted

“The motion for summary judgment is well taken and should be and hereby is sustained, and summary judgment is granted in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $339.16 together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from April 5, 1963 and the costs of this action.”

Ashland Oil & Refining Co. v. Hooker Chemical Corp.
· 1970-10-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant Hooker Chemical Corp.) Denied

“Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss hereby is denied.”

Motions to stay (defendant Hooker Chemical Corp.) Denied

“In view of this Court’s determination that this Court in the Southern District of Ohio is the more convenient and appropriate forum for the determination of this controversy, Branch II of defendant’s motion hereby is denied.”

Sypherd v. Haeckl's Express, Inc.
· 1962-09-13
Motion to require election (defendants Haeckl's Express, Inc. and Leland Hodges) Denied

“Accordingly, defendants’ motion to require plaintiff to elect should be and it hereby is DENIED.”

Guernsey-Muskingum Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Federal Pacific Electric Co.
· 1962-06-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant Schwager-Wood Corporation) Granted

“Accordingly, the motion of defendant Schwager-Wood Corporation to dismiss this action as to said defendant is hereby sustained.”

Rose v. Richardson
· 1972-06-25
Summary judgment (defendant Secretary) Granted

“Accordingly, the motion of the defendant Secretary for summary judgment hereby is sustained, the decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare hereby is affirmed, and plaintiff’s complaint hereby is dismissed.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff Max Rose) Denied

“The motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment hereby is denied.”

Fass v. Ruegg
· 1965-05-25
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“However, the scope of permissive review is limited and having found that the required procedural rights were complied with and no constitutional or statutory rights were denied, the Court sustains defendants’ motion for summary judgment.”

United States v. Schutzler
· 1969-10-09
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“In accordance with the foregoing defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied.”

Dowell v. Gardner
· 1966-04-22
Social security appeal (plaintiff Eileen Dowell on behalf of her children) Granted

“Accordingly, the Court hereby reverses the denial of plaintiff’s claim before defendant and orders the claim of the minor children approved and directs the defendant to pay the applicable benefits to which such children are entitled, effective commencing June 25, 1964.”

Ohio-Midland Light and Power Co. v. Ohio Brass Company
· 1962-06-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant Lapp Insulator Company, Inc.) Granted

“Accordingly, the motions of defendant Lapp Insulator Company, Inc. to dismiss these actions as to said defendant are hereby sustained.”

Shumard v. General Motors Corporation
· 1967-02-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant General Motors Corporation) Granted

“The motion of the defendant, General Motors Corporation, to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for the reason that each of the counts of said complaint fails to state a claim against said defendant upon which relief can be granted is hereby sustained.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No assigned historical case set was enumerable, so no case-mix or duration claim is made.

A historical record

Judge Weinman 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.