Solomon Blatt Jr.

How Judge Blatt rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Blatt 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
1971–2016
Appointed by
Richard M. Nixon (Republican)
Commissioned
1971-05-28
Education
University of South Carolina, A.B. (1941); University of South Carolina School of Law, LL.B. (1946)
Signed orders read
20

How Judge Blatt decides

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

What persuades

In Griffin, Blatt focused disability review on real functional capacity rather than whether a claimant might locate a particular job.

“the test under the Social Security Act is not whether a plaintiff could or could not get a job, but rather whether he could perform ‘substantial gainful activity.’”

Procedural preferences

In Skidaway Associates, Blatt treated service on a statutory agent differently from actual receipt when calculating the removal deadline.

“service on a statutory agent, such as a State Highway Commissioner, or here, the State Insurance Commissioner, does not start the running of the removal statute time limitation period as would service on the defendant or an agent designated by the defendant.”

Cautions

In Blomquist, Blatt declined to extend a contested arbitration rule without clearer guidance from binding appellate authority.

“this court prefers to await a more definitive statement from a larger following of United States Supreme Court justices or a ruling from the Fourth Circuit before taking a position that would effectively bar plaintiffs from a Congressionally granted right to judicial resolution of alleged federal securities law violations.”

Signed rulings

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

Skidaway Associates, Ltd. v. Glens Falls Insurance
· 1990-06-15
Motions to remand (plaintiffs) Denied

“For these reasons, the plaintiffs’ motion to remand is hereby denied.”

Blomquist v. Churchill
· 1985-11-19
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted in part

“the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied as to the plaintiff’s second cause of action alleging a violation of § 15(c)(1) of the 1934 Act, denied as to plaintiff’s third cause of action for violation of § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 2 and granted as to plaintiff’s fifth cause of action alleging a violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act;”

Motion to compel arbitration (defendants) Granted in part

“The motion is granted as to the plaintiff’s remaining state law claims which include the sixth cause of action for common law fraud; seventh cause of action for negligent misrepresentation; eighth cause of action for negligence and recklessness; ninth cause of action for breach of contract and tenth cause of action for breach of implied contract;”

Motions to stay (defendants) Denied

“the defendants’ motion to stay these judicial proceedings pending resolution of the issues sent to arbitration is denied.”

Jenkins v. Heckler
· 1992-02-07
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“This matter is remanded to the Secretary for findings consistent herewith.”

Griffin v. Califano
· 1979-07-11
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons heretofore expressed, the instant action is remanded to the' Secretary.”

Rosen v. Associates Financial Services Co.
· 1982-02-05
Bankruptcy appeal (creditor-appellant) Denied

“the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court is affirmed and defendant-appellant’s appeal is denied.”

Wiggins v. Travelers Insurance
· 1979-12-07
Summary judgment motion (defendant) Granted in part

“ORDERED, that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby granted as to punitive damages and attorney’s fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby denied as to all damages which do not exceed the claim for lost wages due to disability, namely, Four Hundred Sixty and 36/100 Dollars ($460.36).”

Price v. Government Employees Insurance
· 1978-03-02
Summary judgment motion (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED, that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, granted.”

Rogers v. Comprehensive Rehabilitation Associates, Inc.
· 1992-12-16
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby denied.”

Kessler v. United States
· 1981-05-29
Summary judgment motion (defendant United States) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment under Fed. R.Civ.Pro. 56(b) is hereby granted.”

Mitchell v. Tenneco Chemicals, Inc.
· 1971-09-09
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“the action must be, and hereby is, dismissed.”

P-Nut Carter's Fireworks, Inc. v. Carey
· 1988-06-08
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“the plaintiff’s motion is hereby granted, and this case must be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Jasper County.”

Martinez v. Fenn
· 1988-12-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant United States) Denied

“the motion of the United States to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative for summary judgment, is denied.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 219 days (N = 10).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 6 days (N = 1).

A fixed-seed sample of ten terminated matters filed in 2005 and 2015 included personal-injury, prisoner, Social Security, product-liability, employment, fraud, and civil-rights cases.

A historical record

Judge Blatt 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.