Sarah Elizabeth Daggett Morrison
How Judge Morrison rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Morrison
Sarah Daggett Morrison is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Morrison received a commission on June 14, 2019.
Judge Morrison's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Morrison, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Standing Orders for Civil Cases ↗
- Standing Orders for Criminal Cases ↗
- Template Final Pretrial Order for Civil Cases ↗
Key rules
Filing
File a civil motion and its supporting memorandum together as one document.
“Motions and supporting memoranda must be filed together in one document.”
Motions
Civil briefs are limited to 25 pages and reply briefs to 10 pages without advance leave.
“Briefs are subject to a 25-page limit. Reply briefs are further limited to ten”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
- General Order 24-02 In Re: Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- U.S. District Court General Order No. 24-05 ↗
- General Order 23-03 In Re: Automatic Sealing and Procedures for Unsealing of Applications for Search Warrants, Pen Registers, Trap and Trace Devices, or Court Orders Under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d). ↗
How Judge Morrison decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Pryor v. Ohio State University, Morrison granted summary judgment on a Title IX claim under Ohio's two-year personal-injury limitations period. She rejected the plaintiff's reliance on the Northern District of Ohio's Doe 1 decision, explaining why she concluded it had been wrongly decided.
“A close reading of binding case law leads this Court to conclude that Doe 1 was wrongly decided.”
In a Title VII case, the court held that refiling after a voluntary dismissal did not toll the ninety-day period following the right-to-sue notice.
“the filing of a prior complaint does not toll the ninety-day period and the court cannot extend the time for filing.”
When an unopposed summary-judgment record established the contract terms and the plaintiff’s claims failed under those terms, she granted judgment on the claims and the counterclaim for breach of contract.
“For the reasons above, Roto-Rooter’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED.”
Procedural preferences
In a case raising a Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional challenge, Morrison analyzed the defendants’ motion under Rule 12(b)(1) because the argument concerned the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
“the Court finds a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) analysis more appropriate given Defendants' reliance upon the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.”
In Fortney v. Walmart, Morrison denied a personal-jurisdiction motion after finding Walmart had waived the defense through its participation in the litigation after amending its answer.
“The procedural history of this case makes clear: Walmart has waived its right to assert a personal jurisdiction defense.”
In a summary-judgment ruling, the court declined to consider a new claim introduced only in the response brief; a new theory required leave to amend. It also struck a memorandum filed without leave under the local rule.
“a plaintiff may not assert new claims in her response to summary judgment.”
In a mineral-rights dispute, she treated statutory unitization orders as regulatory acts rather than a private contract and dismissed both a quiet-title count and a contract count without prejudice.
“For the above reasons, Gulfport’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED. Counts I and II of Ms. Vranish’s Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
Cautions
In ArmorSource v. Kapah, Morrison denied the plaintiff's summary-judgment motion because competing testimony about consulting payments and an alleged kickback scheme presented factual disputes that required credibility determinations by a jury.
“Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge[.]”
A § 2255 ineffective-assistance claim failed where counsel had raised the relevant suppression case and the prisoner only preferred that counsel emphasize it more.
“That Mr. Hawkins would have preferred his counsel to put more emphasis on the case does not render their performance ‘outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 37), DENIES OhioHealth's Second Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 33)”
“and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Surreply (ECF No. 36)”
“the Township's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to all claims.”
“Ohio State's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF no. 42) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case.”
“ArmorSource's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 169) is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Judge Jamison and Franklin County is GRANTED. (ECF No. 18.) The Section 1983 claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Irvin's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and these claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. (ECF No. 9.)”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Stay (ECF No. 9) and the three Motions to Strike (ECF Nos. 10, 18, and 22) are DENIED as moot.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Walmart's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiffs have failed to allege antitrust standing. The Court finds that no amendment to the Complaint could cure this failure because the insufficiency lies not in the specific claims but in the nature of the alleged harm. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant the Ohio Department of Public Safety and the Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate the case.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case from the docket”
“the Troopers' Partial Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Mr. Yoder's Fourteenth Amendment claim, Fourth Amendment false arrest claim, Section 1983 civil conspiracy claim, and official capacity claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Mr. Yoder's remaining claims are unaffected by this ruling.”
“motion to dismiss (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED”
“motion to dismiss (ECF No. 45) is GRANTED”
“preliminary injunction motion (ECF No. 48) is DENIED as moot”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sample consists of currently assigned or inherited cases terminated from 2019 through 2022. Four cases that terminated before Judge Morrison's June 2019 commission are excluded.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, not for Judge Morrison: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 2,199 | 9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,037 | 7.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 810 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 343 | 15.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,199 | 9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,137 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,153 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,311 | 12.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,287 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,012 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,561 | 41.6 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Morrison with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Morrison, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Morrison's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace