Terry L. Wooten

How Judge Wooten rules, drawn from 5 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
Position
district
Appointed by
George W. Bush (Republican)
Commissioned
2001-11-26
Education
University of South Carolina (B.A. 1976); University of South Carolina School of Law (J.D. 1980)
Signed orders read
5

How Judge Wooten decides

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

What persuades

Denies summary judgment in securities-fraud actions where forward-looking statements were paired with undisclosed adverse facts and the plaintiff's loss-causation expert offers an admissible event study, letting the case reach a jury; also declines to exclude the competing experts at that stage.

“For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Doc. # 108).”

Procedural preferences

In First Amendment challenges to adult-business zoning and licensing, applies the secondary-effects framework, defers heavily to a city's legislative record, and upholds ordinances as content-neutral time/place/manner regulations.

“Before the Court are the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 25, and Taboo's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 38. The Court grants the City's motion and denies Taboo's motion.”

Cautions

Construes insurance coverage exclusions strictly against the insurer and reads policy terms like 'incident that could result in a claim' narrowly, refusing to rescind claims-made policies where no disclosable matter existed on the application.

“Thus, after careful consideration, for the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 22) is hereby DENIED.”

Signed rulings

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

City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System v. Sonoco Products Co.
· 2011-10-19
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Doc. # 108).”

Daubert (defendant) Denied

“Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of John D. Finnerty, Ph.D. is DENIED. (Doc. # 105).”

Daubert (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs motions to exclude the testimony of John P. Freeman and the testimony of Christopher F. Noe, Ph.D., as set forth, are DENIED. (Docs. # 109 and 110).”

Daubert (plaintiff) Denied
Darwin National Assurance Co. v. Matthews & Megna LLC
· 2014-07-29
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Thus, after careful consideration, for the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 22) is hereby DENIED.”

Cricket Store 17, LLC v. City of Columbia
· 2015-03-31
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Before the Court are the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 25, and Taboo's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 38. The Court grants the City's motion and denies Taboo's motion.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Cade v. United States
· 2017-08-23
Habeas petition (petitioner) Granted

“This matter comes before the Court for consideration of the pro se petition to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Petitioner Johnny Cade. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the petition.”

Graham v. United States
4:16-cv-01716 · 2017-08-23
Habeas petition (petitioner) Granted

“Accordingly, his petition for relief pursuant to § 2255, ECF No. 78, is GRANTED. His sentence in this case is hereby VACATED.”

Draft for Judge Wooten with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wooten, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Wooten's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace