Fred Joseph Nichol

United States District Court for the District of South Dakota district Retired 1996 · served 1965–1996 Appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic) 26 signed orders read

Judge Nichol no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Nichol decides

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

What persuades

Nichol rejected vocational findings built on conjecture rather than record evidence of realistic work.

“is based upon speculation and conjecture, and it is not based upon substantial evidence when the record is considered as a whole.”

Purposeful commercial conduct in the forum, not merely foreseeable injury there, supported personal jurisdiction.

“the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.”

Procedural preferences

He liberally construed civil-rights pleadings while still requiring concrete supporting facts.

“In litigation involving section 1983, the court must liberally construe the pleadings.”

He used partial summary judgment to fix an already-litigated liability issue while reserving damages for trial.

“The determination of the damages due the plaintiffs is the only remaining issue to be tried.”

Cautions

Prospective relief remained available against state officials even when compliance imposed financial burdens.

“All the relief ordered here is prospective.”

A habeas petition filed before state exhaustion was denied without prejudice and without a merits ruling.

“the petitioner’s writ is denied with no ruling made on the merits of the claims therein.”

Signed rulings

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

United States v. Farmers State Bank
249 F. Supp. 579 · 1966-01-18
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff United States) Granted

“The application by the United States for a preliminary injunction is granted”

Ihnen v. Gardner
253 F. Supp. 541 · 1966-04-28
Social security appeal (plaintiff claimant) Granted

“granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and reversing and remanding the case to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, with directions that the claimant be granted a period of disability and disability benefits”

In re Nielson
301 F. Supp. 726 · 1969-07-23
Habeas petition (petitioner) Moot / procedural

“the petitioner’s writ is denied with no ruling made on the merits of the claims therein. This will be without prejudice for the petitioner to bring a subsequent writ in this Court upon the exhaustion of his State-Court remedies.”

Klingler v. Erickson
328 F. Supp. 674 · 1971-07-13
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“The petition for habeas corpus relief is denied.”

Rufer v. Richardson
345 F. Supp. 583 · 1972-07-25
Social security appeal (plaintiff claimant) Granted

“The decision of the Appeals Council of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare is reversed”

National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. Iverson
346 F. Supp. 660 · 1972-08-14
Insurance coverage claim (plaintiff insurer) Denied

“National is obligated to indemnify the Iversons insofar as Coverage E provisions apply.”

Crowe v. State of South Dakota
356 F. Supp. 777 · 1973-04-05
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“It is the order of this court that Percy Crowe’s petition for habeas corpus be quashed.”

Hickey v. Crow Creek Housing Authority
379 F. Supp. 1002 · 1974-07-08
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby granted”

United States ex rel. Bad Heart Bull v. Parkinson
385 F. Supp. 1265 · 1974-12-30
Habeas petition (petitioners) Denied

“an order in accordance with this memorandum decision quashing the writ of habeas corpus in this case.”

Lufkins v. United States
391 F. Supp. 1328 · 1975-04-21
Motion to vacate sentence (petitioner) Denied

“It is therefore ordered that this motion be dismissed.”

Becker v. Central Telephone & Utilities Corp.
393 F. Supp. 1357 · 1975-05-30
Indemnity claim (third-party plaintiff) Denied

“It follows as a matter of law that Cengas is not entitled to contract indemnity from Hood Corporation.”

Application of Aschmeller
403 F. Supp. 983 · 1975-12-02
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“the application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The publication-selected decisions do not establish the distribution of Nichol’s full caseload.

A historical record

Judge Nichol 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.