James Howard Jarvis II
How Judge Jarvis rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Jarvis no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Jarvis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the sentencing-evidence ruling, Jarvis tied statutory interpretation to the point at which seized material became a marketable drug product rather than counting every part of an unprocessed plant.
“I am of the opinion that a ‘market-oriented’ approach necessarily assumes that the substance or mixture is one which is in some form that is readily marketable.”
Procedural preferences
Jarvis treated the Clean Air Act's pre-suit notice requirement as jurisdictional in the reviewed citizen-suit decision.
“To summarize, I conclude that the plaintiff has not complied with the notice requirements of the Clean Air Act, and this court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”
Cautions
In the disability case, Jarvis would not allow a litigant to contradict prior sworn statements without a persuasive explanation.
“Moreover, allowing plaintiff to assert a contrary position in these proceedings may serve to undermine the integrity of this court by encouraging ‘chameleonic litigants.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The court will not consider the weight of plant ‘stalks’ and other substances not included with the definition of ‘marihuana’ in 21 U.S.C. § 802(16) if enhancement of sentence should prove necessary in this case.”
“For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant University of Tennessee’s Motion to Dismiss the claim be and the same hereby is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [Court File # 11] is granted, and this action is dismissed.”
“Therefore, the order of the Bankruptcy Court permitting that conversion is hereby REVERSED and this action REMANDED for an order maintaining FMCC’s claim as secured.”
“Thus, Dunphy’s motion must be denied.”
“Therefore, the defendant United States’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint against it [Court File # 17] will be granted.”
“Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order [Court File # 11] will be denied as moot;”
“The parties’ joint motion for an extension of time in which to respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss and reply to the same [Court File # 32] will be granted;”
“Plaintiffs motion to file a deposition of Dr. Vince Adams in full [Court File # 36] will be granted.”
“Plaintiffs’ claims against 3M must be dismissed because they lack one essential element: 3M did not design, manufacture, or sell the breast implants in question.”
“It is hereby ORDERED that service of process upon defendant Honda Motor Company, Ltd. is hereby QUASHED, and plaintiff will be afforded forty-five (45) days within which to properly serve defendant in compliance with the Hague Convention.”
“plaintiffs motion for additional time to serve reply [Court File # 30] is GRANTED;”
“TVA’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [Court File # 32] is GRANTED;”
“plaintiffs motion to withdraw plaintiffs Rule 26(f) report [Court File # 35] is GRANTED;”
“NPCA’s motion for partial summary judgment to strike TVA’s sovereign immunity defense [Court File # 36] is DENIED AS MOOT;”
“TVA’s motion to strike portions for affidavits and declarations submitted by plaintiff on issue of standing [Court File # 50] is DENIED AS MOOT;”
“NPCA’s unopposed motion for extension of time [Court File # 53] is GRANTED;”
“defendant TVA’s motion for continuance of trial [Court File # 54] is GRANTED;”
“NPCA’s motion to exclude testimony from TVA’s experts [Court File # 58] is DENIED AS MOOT;”
“TVA’s unopposed motion for extension of time [Court File # 62] is GRANTED;”
“NPCA’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding central legal issues in case [Court File # 15] is DENIED;”
“NPCA’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of standing [Court File #18] is DENIED;”
“NPCA’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding TVA’s liability for opacity violations [Court File # 25] is DENIED;”
“For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion this day passed to the Clerk for filing, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Court File # 73] is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED.”
“For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion this day passed to the Clerk for filing, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Court File # 12] is DENIED.”
“In light of the foregoing, defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted will be denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The retrievable sampled case contained no electronic entry timeline, and four additional sampled cases could not be retrieved. The profile therefore makes no complete claim about motion timing, case duration, or Jarvis's overall caseload mix.
A historical record
Judge Jarvis 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.