Clyde Henry Hamilton

How Judge Hamilton rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Hamilton 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 South Carolina
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1981–2020
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
1981-12-01
Education
Wofford College, B.S., 1956; George Washington University Law School, J.D., 1961
Signed orders read
19

How Judge Hamilton decides

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

What persuades

In Atlantic Shores, Hamilton required concrete evidence of improper motive rather than an appearance of impropriety before disturbing an arbitration award.

“The party alleging evident partiality must establish specific facts which indicate improper motives on the part of the Board”

In Workman, Hamilton treated the resident contractor as a real party because state law could impose liability for negligent performance regardless of the precise agency relationship.

“If no cause of action exists, the joinder is fraudulent and the lack of diversity will not bar removal.”

Procedural preferences

In Dean Witter, Hamilton declined to extend an employment arbitration clause to post-resignation tort claims outside the agreement's meaningful scope.

“the duty to arbitrate is a contractural obligation, and the federal courts will not compel arbitration of claims that the parties have not agreed to arbitrate.”

In Lawyers Title, Hamilton declined to let a cross-claim defendant override the plaintiff's chosen state forum through an expansive reading of removal jurisdiction.

“the removal statute should be construed strictly, and against removal”

Cautions

In Brockmann, Hamilton distinguished legal work that preserves threatened property from attorney time spent merely asserting a damages claim.

“Plaintiffs hired attorneys here merely to assert their claim for recission against defendants, and their attorneys’ efforts were spent in anticipation of litigation, not in any attempt to mitigate plaintiffs’ damages.”

In Greer, Hamilton denied interim relief while emphasizing that the ruling did not decide the ultimate merits of the age-discrimination claim.

“the type of relief requested by plaintiff is extraordinary in nature, and not justified on the grounds shown herein.”

Signed rulings

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

Toyota of Florence, Inc. v. Lynch
4:89-594-15, 4:89-595-15 · 1989-05-24
Motions to remand (plaintiff Toyota of Florence, Inc.) Granted

“It is therefore required that these actions be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Darlington County”

Motions to remand (plaintiff Richard L. Beasley) Granted
Miller v. W.H. Bristow, Inc.
4:89-2668-15 · 1990-05-31
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“For that reason, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is hereby granted.”

Cooke v. Allstate Management Corp.
3:89-1476-15 · 1990-02-28
Summary judgment (defendant Allstate Management Corp.) Granted in part

“defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted on all causes of action exceptthe allegation that defendant was negligent in storing the ladder.”

Pine Lakes International Country Club v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp.
4:88-2524-15 · 1989-08-25
Motion for expenses and attorneys fees (plaintiff Pine Lakes International Country Club) Granted

“The court has concluded that plaintiff’s motion should be granted.”

Powers v. United States, Farmers Home Administration
4:89-2198-15 · 1990-04-24
Summary judgment (plaintiff Laverne Powers) Denied

“plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”

Summary judgment (defendant United States) Granted
Portee v. Tollison
3:90-828-15B · 1990-12-14
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“defendants’ motion for summary judgment is hereby granted.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff Clarence E. Portee) Denied

“Plaintiff Portee’s motion for summary judgment and his ‘Motion for Internal Investigation’ are hereby denied.”

Motion for internal investigation (plaintiff Clarence E. Portee) Denied
Atlantic Shores Resort Joint Venture v. Martin
M90-2-13-H · 1990-03-02
Motion to confirm arbitration award (respondents Martin) Granted

“The court has concluded that respondents’ motion to confirm should be granted.”

Motion to vacate arbitration award (claimant Atlantic Shores) Denied

“Atlantic Shores’ motion to vacate the award and to stay confirmation is accordingly denied.”

Motions to stay (claimant Atlantic Shores) Denied
Brockmann Industries, Inc. v. Carolina Securities Corp.
3:87-2292-15 · 1987-12-04
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“the court finds that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted, it is compelled by Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss their complaint for attorneys’ fees.”

Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Ness
3:87-3277-15 · 1988-01-13
Motion to compel arbitration (petitioners Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. and others) Denied

“the court finds that petitioners are not entitled to an order compelling arbitration of respondent’s state court tort claims. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.”

Ness v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
3:87-1940-15 · 1987-11-24
Motions to remand (plaintiff Dale Ness) Granted

“Because diversity jurisdiction was not present at the time this action was commenced and because federal question jurisdiction is also not present, no basis for the removal of this action to federal court exists, and remand of this action to Richland County, South Carolina, Court of Common Pleas is required.”

United States v. Property Located on Trafalgar Street in Aiken, South Carolina
1:88-0060-15 · 1988-11-04
Summary judgment (plaintiff United States) Granted

“The court has concluded that the government’s motion for summary judgment should be granted.”

Summary judgment (claimant Ann G. Schifferli) Moot / procedural

“Absent standing, Mrs. Schifferli’s motion for summary judgment against the government is mooted.”

Mills v. Leath
4:88-2483-15 · 1988-11-04
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“the court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 and civil conspiracy claims, and dismisses the wrongful discharge claim without prejudice.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 212 days (N = 5).

The five earliest located matters were filed between December 1981 and March 1982. Their metadata did not identify subject categories, so no caseload mix is reported.

A historical record

Judge Hamilton 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.