George Ross Anderson Jr.

How Judge Anderson rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Anderson 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
1980–2020
Appointed by
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Commissioned
1980-05-23
Education
Southeastern University, B.C.S. (1949); George Washington University (1949–1951); University of South Carolina School of Law, LL.B. (1954)
Signed orders read
29

How Judge Anderson decides

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

What persuades

In Hege, Anderson treated meaningful and accurate class notice as essential to binding absent members.

“The party producing the notice documents has the burden of providing informative, accurate notice to class members.”

Procedural preferences

In Lasher, Anderson resolved summary judgment claim by claim after reviewing the magistrate judge's recommendation and the parties' objections.

“Summary judgement is GRANTED as to the plaintiffs claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent retention, and hostile work environment relating to Tom Sims. Summary judgment is DENIED as to the plaintiffs claims for hostile work environment relating to Guy Starr and retaliation.”

Cautions

In Scott, Anderson refused to enforce a private contractual deadline that would shorten a federal statutory filing period.

“frustrate Congressional intent through a cleverly-drawn unilateral contract.”

Signed rulings

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

Palmetto Builders & Designers, Inc. v. UniReal, Inc.
· 2004-10-22
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is granted.”

Norris v. City of Anderson
· 2000-01-20
Summary judgment motion (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons set forth, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted as to Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim under Title VII and § 1981. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to the extent that it recommends Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted as to all other claims of Plaintiff.”

Fleming v. Borden, Inc.
· 1992-07-09
Summary judgment motion (defendant) Granted

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, and plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.”

Petition of Duggan
· 1990-01-18
Attorney fee motion (claimant's counsel) Granted

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendant pay the petitioner Nine Thousand Six Hundred Forty-three and 75/100 ($9,643.75) Dollars for attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).”

Hampton v. Conso Products, Inc.
· 1992-12-15
Summary judgment motion (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, summary judgement is rendered in favor of the defendant with respect to each of the plaintiff’s causes of action.”

Drs. Steuer & Latham, P.A. v. National Medical Enterprises, Inc.
· 1987-08-31
Summary judgment motion (defendants) Granted

“the Court has, for the reasons which follow, decided to grant defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Carroll v. Greenville County Sheriff's Department
· 1994-12-29
Motion for judgment as matter of law (defendants) Moot / procedural

“Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the action is dismissed.”

Griego v. Ford Motor Co.
· 1998-09-09
Motion to stay and certify interlocutory appeal (nonparty discovery respondent) Denied

“IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT Michelin Americas Research and Development Corporation’s motion for stay and certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is hereby DENIED.”

Thornton v. Caterpillar, Inc.
· 1997-01-21
Motion to exclude expert (defendants) Denied

“THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Dr. Melvin K. Richardson, Ph.D. is denied.”

Stehle v. General Mills Restaurant, Inc.
· 1994-10-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“dismissal/summary judgment are granted as to Plaintiffs claims of outrage and sexual harassment.”

Warner v. Ryobi Motor Products Corp.
· 1992-12-24
Preliminary injunction (plaintiffs) Granted

“ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED That Plaintiffs’ Motion pursuant to Section 502 of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65 for a Preliminary Injunction pending a hearing on the merits is granted”

Scott v. Guardsmark Security
· 1995-01-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that this Court denies the Defendant’s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 280 days (N = 10).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 294 days (N = 1).

The fixed-seed sample of ten terminated matters filed in early 2000 included ERISA, employment, prisoner, Social Security, contract, and government-collection cases.

A historical record

Judge Anderson 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.