Allen Edward Barrow

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma district Deceased · served 1962–1979 Appointed by John F. Kennedy (Democratic) 17 signed orders read

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

How Judge Barrow decides

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

What persuades

He treated a just result, not technical perfection, as the objective of judicial review of agency proceedings.

“Administrative boards and commissions owe as much duty to so conduct their hearings and proceedings as to secure a just result as is the case in respect to proceedings in court.”

Cautions

He declined to read a federal flood-insurance statute as making federal jurisdiction exclusive when neither its text nor legislative history supported that result.

“This Court finds nothing in the language of § 4053 that infers exclusive jurisdiction in the federal court”

Signed rulings

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

Land v. United States
· 1964-07-17
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The motion for summary-judgment is therefore sustained.”

Tulsa Grain Storage Co. v. Commodity Credit Corp.
· 1964-07-14
Declaratory judgment claim (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs are not entitled to a declaratory judgment against Commodity, nor to any credit for shrinkage of Commodity’s wheat while it was in their care.”

Counterclaim (defendant) Granted

“Commodity is entitled as a matter of law to judgments on its-counterclaims against the Plaintiffs and' their surety companies.”

United States v. Bell
· 1966-07-15
Contract recovery claim (plaintiff) Granted

“The plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to judgment against the defendants, Pat *606Bell and Hazel Bell, for the principal sum of $5,864.07 with interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from the 22nd day of March 1966, together with the sum of $2,633.52 accrued interest and for the cost of this action.”

Midwestern Developments, Inc. v. City of Tulsa
· 1966-07-18
Declaratory judgment claim (plaintiff) Denied

“The defendant, City of Tulsa, is entitled to recover judgment, together with its costs herein expended.”

Haley v. Gardner
· 1966-09-09
Application for attorney fees (plaintiff) Denied

“It is, therefore, ordered that the Court declines to pass upon the application for fees.”

Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union v. Cities Service Oil Co.
· 1967-12-20
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“the motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment should be overruled”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the motion of the defendant for summary judgment in its favor should be sustained”

Eby v. United States
· 1968-07-08
Section 2255 motion (petitioner) Denied

“petitioner’s motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 be and the same is hereby denied.”

Smith v. North American Rockwell Corp.
· 1970-02-25
Motions to strike (defendant) Granted

“it is hereby ordered that judgment be entered striking from the Complaint any references to 42 U.S. C. § 1981 insofar as plaintiffs have sought to base a cause of action on that statute”

Motion to sever (defendant) Granted

“severing into four separate causes of action the claims stated by each plaintiff herein”

Class certification (plaintiff) Granted in part

“leaving open to each plaintiff herein the right to allege a cause of action on behalf of . any class of persons which each such plaintiff may separately represent under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Clonce v. United States
· 1970-02-25
Section 2255 motion (petitioner) Denied

“the Section 2255 petition of Larry Charles Clonce to vacate, set aside, and dismiss the judgment, sentence and commitment in Criminal Cause of Action No. 13685 be and it is hereby denied and dismissed.”

Motion for appointment of counsel (petitioner) Moot / procedural

“Since the Court finds that the Section 2255 petition should be denied, the motion for appointment of counsel is moot and should be overrruled.”

Freese v. United States
· 1971-01-13
Tax refund claim (plaintiff) Granted in part

“the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of income taxes in the amount of $2,430.45, and assessed interest in the amount of $209.38, plus statutory interest thereon. In all other respects, the claims of the plaintiff are denied.”

American Oil Co. v. United States
· 1974-06-27
Wrongful levy claim (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff is not entitled to recover the sum paid, to-wit; $1,850.02 to the Internal Revenue Service under the provisions of Title 26 U.S.C.A. Section 7426.”

Rental recovery claim (plaintiff) Granted

“the period for which recovery is granted will be the three week period during which the American Oil Company was deprived of its property”

Squaw Transit Co. v. United States
· 1975-10-24
Petition for reconsideration (plaintiff) Granted

“this case be remanded to the Interstate Commerce *1291Commission with directions that the Petition for Reconsideration be granted in light of this opinion.”

A historical record

Judge Barrow 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.