Thomas Gray Hull

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

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

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1983–2008
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
1983-11-14
Education
University of Tennessee College of Law, J.D. (1951)
Signed orders read
20

How Judge Hull decides

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

What persuades

Hull found irreparable harm where terminating public-health-program participation would likely close a psychiatric hospital before administrative review finished, affecting patients and employees as well as the institution.

“The hospital has also satisfied the Court that, in the absence of an injunction, not only it, but its patients and employees, would suffer irreparable harm.”

Procedural preferences

Hull required a concrete risk that testimony would be lost before permitting a post-judgment deposition to perpetuate testimony during an appeal.

“Plaintiff has not shown, by affidavit or otherwise, that evidence is likely to be lost while the appeal is pending.”

Cautions

Hull treated written plan terms as controlling in benefits litigation and would not use outside evidence to alter them.

“It is clearly settled that parol evidence cannot be used to alter the terms of an ERISA plan.”

Signed rulings

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

Frontier Health Inc. v. Shalala
· 2000-05-10
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction and ENJOINS the Secretary of Health and Human Services from terminating Woodridge Hospital’s participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs and from notifying any state agency or other entity or person of any purported termination, until the administrative appeal process has been completed and the Secretary has issued her final decision.”

United States v. Various Articles of Device Identified in Attachment "A"
· 1992-01-01
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.”

Motion to withdraw claim (claimant) Denied

“Sporicidin’s motion to withdraw is hereby DENIED.”

United States v. VARIOUS ARTICLES OF DEVICE IDENTIFIED IN ATTACHMENT" A"
· 1992-12-30
Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, the United States’ motion for partial summary judgment is hereby GRANTED; the Court FINDS the devices adulterated and misbranded and ORDERS them condemned.”

Carswell v. Raytheon Employees Disability Trust
· 2001-04-03
Motion for judgment on administrative record (defendant) Granted

“Pursuant to a memorandum opinion this day passed to the Clerk for filing, the motion for a judgment on the administrative record filed by Raytheon and MetLife [Doc. 11] is hereby GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED.”

Malone v. Mayflower Transit, Inc.
· 1993-03-18
State law claims (plaintiff) Denied

“Therefore, the plaintiffs theories of recovery under state common law theories of negligence and bailment, under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and under Tennessee statutory bad-faith penalty provisions are ORDERED DISMISSED.”

Claim for attorney fees (plaintiff) Denied

“The plaintiff has filed no authority for the proposition that he is entitled to recover attorney’s fees, and accordingly, this claim for relief is DISMISSED.”

Roberts v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
· 1993-10-27
Request for jury instruction (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, defendant’s request to charge comparative fault is DENIED.”

Gandy v. SULLIVAN COUNTY, TENN.
· 1993-03-22
Motion for judgment as a matter of law (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial is DENIED.”

Motion for new trial (defendant) Denied
Motion for determination of damages (defendant) Denied

“The Court finds that plaintiffs back wages should be calculated for the period of September 6, 1988 to November 20, 1992 at the ‘K’ level and the defendant’s motion in regard to calculation of damages is DENIED.”

Motion for determination of damages (plaintiff) Granted

“The plaintiffs motion for judgment in the amount of $16,096.50 for compensatory damages, $16,096.50 for liquidated damages based on the jury’s finding of willfulness, attorney’s fees in the amount of $32,068.75, *728 and costs of $698.05, or for a total judgment in the amount of $64,959.80 is GRANTED.”

Motion for prejudgment interest (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs supplemental motion for pre-judgment interest in regard to plaintiffs compensatory and liquidated damages is DENIED [Doe. 54], because an award of pre-judgment interest is inappropriate when liquidated damages have been awarded.”

Arango v. Third National Bank in Nashville (In re Arango)
· 1992-06-29
Bankruptcy appeal (appellant) Denied

“The Bankruptcy Court applied the proper standard in denying the debtor’s motion to avoid Third National’s judgment lien and is hereby AFFIRMED.”

Cousin v. McWherter
· 1994-01-26
Motion for stay pending appeal (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for a stay is DENIED as being premature, and is also DENIED on the merits.”

Benedict v. United Inter-Mountain Telephone Co.
· 1993-03-31
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, for the reasons set out herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by Local Union No. 3871 of the Communications Workers of America, and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO is GRANTED, [Doc. 18];”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“that the motion for summary judgment filed by United Inter-Mountain Telephone Company and the Health Care Protection Plan for Employees of United Inter-Mountain Telephone Company is GRANTED, [Doc. 17];”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment is DENIED;”

Exchange Insurance v. United States Department of the Interior
· 1993-04-09
Administrative appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, the Secretary’s decision to forfeit these bonds is AFFIRMED and this action is DISMISSED.”

Herman v. United States
· 1999-09-28
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ joint motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED and the Court FINDS they are entitled to a refund of the additional federal income tax, interest, and tax penalties assessed against them.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The five sampled terminated cases contained no electronic entry timelines, so the profile makes no complete claim about motion timing, case duration, or Hull's overall caseload mix.

A historical record

Judge Hull 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.