William Byrd Traxler Jr.

How Judge Traxler rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Traxler 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
Elevated to a higher court
Served
1992–1998
Appointed by
George H. W. Bush (Republican)
Commissioned
1992-03-02
Education
Davidson College, B.A., 1970; University of South Carolina School of Law, J.D., 1973
Signed orders read
18

How Judge Traxler decides

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

What persuades

Traxler declined to extend a surety's undertaking after the underlying agreement materially changed without the surety's assent.

“This court, however, is not empowered to order Reliance to extend the scope of its bond undertaking to cover materially different facts and circumstances any more than it is permitted to rewrite a contract or force litigants to assent to terms that differ from the original terms of their contract.”

He applied judicial estoppel when an employment claimant's position conflicted with the total-disability position on which she had obtained benefits.

“Application of these principles leads to the inexorable conclusion that Hindman is judicially estopped from asserting her retaliation claim because she cannot establish a prima facie ease of a violation under the ADA.”

Procedural preferences

Traxler treated a single incident-free day as insufficient to erase a documented history relevant to a school's forecast of disruption.

“One day free of conflict does not eliminate the school’s significant history of problems caused by the Confederate Flag.”

In a negotiated commercial transaction, he enforced the boundary between contract remedies and tort recovery for economic loss.

“The integrity of contract must be maintained, or contract law will ‘drown in a sea of tort.’”

Signed rulings

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

Carriage Town, Inc. v. LandCo, Inc.
· 1998-01-20
Motion for payment from bond (defendants) Denied

“THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for' payment from the proceeds of the bond posted by Reliance is denied.”

Motion to repossess property (defendants) Granted

“Defendants’ motion to repossess its rolling stock and kitchen equipment is granted without opposition.”

Citizens for the Hopkins Post Office v. United States Postal Service
· 1993-01-25

After a nonjury trial, Traxler found for the Postal Service on a challenge to the reassignment of employees between post offices.

Knight v. American National Fire Insurance
· 1993-03-23
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the summary judgment motion of American National as to the indemnity due ($37,309) is granted.”

Sharpe v. Long
· 1992-10-20
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion of the defendants for summary judgment as to all federal causes of action is granted.”

Phillips v. Anderson County School District Five
· 1997-07-09
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is hereby granted.”

Mincey v. United States Postal Service
· 1995-02-03
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted.”

Tolleson v. Educational Testing Service
· 1992-08-06
Summary judgment (Educational Testing Service) Granted

“THEREFORE, THIS COURT ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND DECREES that Educational Testing Service’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (South Carolina Department of Education) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department of Education’s Motion for Summary Judgment is likewise GRANTED.”

Trident Regional Health System v. Polin
· 1996-10-17
Summary judgment (third-party defendant Life Cycle Engineering) Granted

“the court grants Life Cycle’s motion for summary judgment.”

Hindman v. Greenville Hospital System
· 1996-11-20
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Finally, the court holds that the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to Hindman’s state law claim.”

Wingard v. Exxon Co., U.S.A.
· 1992-10-28
Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Granted

“THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for reconsideration and entry of summary judgment as to all causes of action is granted.”

Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.
· 1996-09-18
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Honeywell’s motion for summary judgment is therefore granted.”

APAC-Carolina, Inc. v. Towns of Allendale and Fairfax
· 1993-06-09

After a nonjury trial in consolidated construction disputes, Traxler entered judgment for the subcontractor against the general contractor.

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The five sampled cases were all terminated matters filed at the start of Traxler's district service. They included three personal-injury matters, an insurance dispute, and a foreclosure action; their median filing-to-termination interval was 327 days. This narrow early-tenure sample does not represent his full district caseload.

A historical record

Judge Traxler 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.