Odell Horton

How Judge Horton rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1980–2006
Appointed by
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Commissioned
1980-05-12
Education
Morehouse College, B.A. (1951); Howard University School of Law, LL.B. (1956)
Signed orders read
22

How Judge Horton decides

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

What persuades

Horton accepted uncontradicted expert evidence as a basis for summary judgment in a malpractice action that required expert proof.

“Where a doctor’s assertions in deposition and affidavit are unequivocal and uncontradicted, then that testimony may support a motion for summary judgment.”

Procedural preferences

Horton treated administrative-subpoena enforcement as a streamlined proceeding and limited discovery absent exceptional circumstances.

“Proceedings to enforce administrative subpoenas are summary in nature.”

Cautions

Horton enforced declared-value limits in shipping contracts even when they sharply reduced the available recovery.

“courts are required to enforce these provisions because they reflect the realities of commercial transportation.”

Signed rulings

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

Zubaz, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp.
· 1994-04-20
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Therefore, the defendant is entitled to partial summary judgment on the claims.”

Grauer v. Federal Express Corp.
· 1994-08-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED and this case is CLOSED.”

American Fidelity Fire Insurance v. United States
· 1985-09-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby granted.”

Bray v. Memphis State University
· 1980-11-19
Motion for sanctions (defendant) Granted

“The court grants both motions.”

Motion to continue trial (defendant) Granted
Thompson v. Rose
· 1981-01-19
Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

“the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s objections to the magistrate’s report is denied.”

Gandy v. Keohane
· 1985-08-20
Motions to dismiss (respondent) Granted

“the respondents are, as a matter, of law, entitled to an order granting the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Castleberry v. Collierville Medical Associates Inc.
· 1981-12-16
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted.”

Hamilton v. Bean
· 1983-05-23
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“After careful consideration and a thorough review of the record, the Court grants the motion.”

Motion to alter or amend judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“The motions are denied.”

Motion for leave to amend complaint (plaintiff) Denied
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Roadway Express, Inc.
· 1984-01-25
Application to enforce administrative subpoena (applicant) Granted

“The application of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for enforcement of its administrative subpoenas is hereby granted.”

Application for protective order (applicant) Granted

“The application of the EEOC for a protective order prohibiting Roadway Express, Inc. from taking the deposition of Julia A. Poussaint, District Director of the Memphis District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is granted.”

Block v. United States
· 1983-03-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“denies plai;.tiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment.”

Irby v. Shelby County Government
· 1981-03-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the motion to dismiss the claim in the complaint under 42 U.S.C. & 2000e et seq. is granted”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“the motion to dismiss the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is denied”

Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“the motion to strike portions of the complaint is denied.”

Hill v. Moore
· 1981-03-25
Petition for writ of habeas corpus (petitioner) Denied

“the Report of the Magistrate is affirmed and the writ of habeas corpus is denied.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The twenty located assigned records were concentrated in contract, employment civil-rights, and patent matters. The absence of historical timeline entries prevents a complete caseload, duration, or motion-timing claim.

A historical record

Judge Horton 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.