T. John Ward
Judge Ward no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Ward decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He declined to enforce a plan provision that would undermine ERISA's broad statutory venue protections for benefit claimants.
“This Court can not allow the Plan’s forum selection clause to override a Con-gressionally enacted statutory framework aimed at assisting employees.”
He required a transfer movant to identify concrete convenience advantages sufficient to make the proposed forum clearly more convenient.
“Target has not met its burden in showing the Eastern District of Wisconsin is ‘clearly more convenient’ than the Eastern District of Texas.”
He rejected an uncorroborated confidential-informant affidavit as insufficient to establish probable cause.
“Generalized, uncorroborated statements of an unidentified informant, like this, are insufficient to establish probable cause, even according great deference to the issuing magistrate’s determination.”
Cautions
He required reliable case-specific causation evidence before admitting expert testimony, while expressly avoiding a broader scientific conclusion unnecessary to the case.
“The beginning and the end of this ruling, therefore, is that the record will not permit the court to admit Dr. Bradstreet’s opinion on specific causation because of the concession that the plaintiffs cannot prove that Jordan Easter’s autism was caused by thimerosal.”
He treated ownership as a threshold requirement in patent litigation.
“A party without title has no standing to bring suit.”
He would not permit expert knowledge to substitute for missing structure in a means-plus-function patent claim.
“That one of skill in the art could create structure sufficient to perform a function is not the inquiry.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Goolsby’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 62) and GRANTS the United States’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 66).”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS defendant Walsin’s and Tekcore’s motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 47 and 98).”
“The court, however, DENIES defendant ForEpi’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 41) because the court has concluded that it may exercise personal jurisdiction over ForEpi pursuant to Rule 4(k)(2).”
“Finally, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to strike Plaintiffs surreply to Defendants’ supplemental reply brief (Dkt. Nos. 124, 125, and 126) because the court did not grant Plaintiff permission to file a supplemental surreply brief.”
“Therefore, this Court DENIES Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (# 6).”
“The Court GRANTS the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Canyon from this case.”
“The Court has carefully considered the parties’ written submissions and GRANTS the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Canyon State Oil Company, Inc. and GRANTS Defendant CRC Industries, Inc.’s request to reconsider the defendants’ joint motion to transfer venue.”
“The defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, this case is transferred to the District of Arizona.”
“For these reasons the Court GRANTS Chief Pat Henderson’s and the City of Palestine’s Motion for Summary Judgment (# 19) with respect to all of Plaintiffs claims.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment seizure claim, Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim, and state law claims for assault, battery, and negligence. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ unlawful search and trespass claims.”
“The court, therefore, GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs claims related to the '496 and '966 patents.”
“The court grants the defendants’ motion to preclude the testimony of Dr. Jeffery Bradstreet with respect to specific causation.”
“Therefore, because 47 U.S.C. § 276 is not amenable to violation by a party other than the FCC, and because no private right of action exist for violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300 et seq., the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.”
“Dresser’s motion for summary judgment is granted. All other pending motions are denied as moot.”
“Accordingly, the Court denies the Plan’s Motion.”
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 351 days (N = 19).
The bounded January 2005 enumeration contains nineteen terminated cases. It is a narrow archival slice, not a career-wide caseload measure.
A historical record
Judge Ward 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.