Leland Clure Morton

How Judge Morton rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1970–1998
Appointed by
Richard Nixon
Commissioned
1970-10-14
Education
University of Tennessee, B.A. (1934); University of Tennessee College of Law, J.D. (1936)
Signed orders read
15

How Judge Morton decides

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

What persuades

Morton preserved access to a judicial forum when the administrative agency made a bona fide determination that it could not act within the statutory period.

“Persons aggrieved by discriminatory employment practices must be afforded a forum in which to assert their rights, and when the EEOC is unable to act, the district court stands ready.”

Procedural preferences

Morton placed the burden of follow-up on an employer once an employee supplied enough information to indicate potentially protected leave.

“After that, it was the employer’s duty to make further inquiry to determine if the leave qualified for FMLA protection.”

Cautions

Morton followed the circuit’s latest directly analogous decision while acknowledging tension with older authority.

“this court feels compelled to follow Haynie’s directions concerning inquiry into ability to pay until such time as the Sixth Circuit gives additional guidance.”

Signed rulings

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

Brannon v. OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc.
· 1995-08-09
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (Docket No. 14) is hereby granted.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 18) is denied.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s motion to strike (Docket No. 25) is granted in part and denied in part.”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Granted

“Finally, plaintiffs motion to strike (Docket No. 29) is granted.”

Carver v. Dennis
· 1995-05-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”

Center Hill Defense Fund v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
· 1995-05-09
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Therefore, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment are granted.”

Judgment on the pleadings (plaintiff) Denied

“The plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.”

England v. Fleetguard, Inc.
· 1995-03-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state-law claim for punitive damages (Docket No. 43) is granted.”

Motion to amend complaint (plaintiff) Denied

“The plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint to add a common-law claim for retaliatory discharge (Docket No. 53) is denied.”

Rice v. Van Wagoner Companies, Inc.
· 1990-05-29
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment is hereby granted.”

Goad v. Macon County, Tennessee
· 1989-09-28
Motion to reduce jury verdict (trial defendants) Granted in part

“As explained below, the court grants the motion in part.”

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.
· 1988-09-29
Motion for relief from order (defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons discussed below, the court grants the defendant partial relief from the August 30, 1988 order.”

Kelani v. Bowen
· 1988-02-18
Summary judgment (Secretary of Health and Human Services) Denied

“the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment is denied”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted”

Garrett v. Puett
· 1982-03-05
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“summary judgment should be granted in favor of defendants”

Cattell v. Bob Frensley Ford, Inc.
· 1980-10-29
Motion to amend complaint (plaintiff) Granted

“the court has determined to grant the latter and deny the former.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied
Burley v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration
· 1977-12-09
Temporary restraining order (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order must be denied”

Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“defendants’ motion to dismiss must be granted”

Wolfe v. Merrill National Laboratories, Inc.
· 1977-06-13
Injunctive relief (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff’s request for an injunction must be denied”

Motion to substitute united states (United States) Granted

“the Government’s motion for substitution must be granted.”

Motions to dismiss (United States) Granted

“the Government’s motion to dismiss must also be granted.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The surviving case index does not provide a representative motion timeline. This profile therefore makes no claim about complete caseload mix, case duration, administrative dispositions, or motion timing.

A historical record

Judge Morton 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.