James Clinton Turk

How Judge Turk rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Turk 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 Virginia
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1972–2014
Appointed by
Richard Nixon (Republican)
Commissioned
1972-10-17
Education
Roanoke College, A.B. (1949); Washington and Lee University School of Law, LL.B. (1952)
Signed orders read
25

How Judge Turk decides

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

What persuades

In benefit review, Turk gave controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported functional opinion when it aligned with the longitudinal medical record.

“Particularly because Dr. Devereaux’s opinion was supported by the other medical evidence of record and not inconsistent with such other evidence, the ALJ’s rejection of it is contrary to the Commissioner’s own regulations and case law.”

Procedural preferences

Turk transferred a nationwide dispute when the witnesses, records, operative events, and stronger factual connection all pointed to another forum.

“For the reasons states, the court grants NAVL’s motion to change venue.”

Cautions

Turk enforced an express indemnification clause rather than adding a separate implied allocation of liability between sophisticated contracting parties.

“When such an indemnification provision exists, it should be enforced.”

Signed rulings

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

Weinstein v. AT & T MOBILITY LLC
· 2008-04-21
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“For the reasons stated, this court grants defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss as to all claims in Plaintiffs amended complaint.”

Lawson v. Colvin
· 2014-05-08
Summary judgment (Commissioner) Denied

“that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 17, is DENIED, and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15, is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff claimant) Granted
Justice v. Barnhart
· 2006-05-10
Motions to remand (Commissioner) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that the magistrate’s report and recommendation is ADOPTED and, therefore, the defendant’s motion to remand will be and hereby is, GRANTED.”

King v. FLINN & DREFFEIN ENGINEERING CO.
· 2009-11-23
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“that the Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is DENIED.”

Kennedy v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ.
· 2011-02-07
Summary judgment (Virginia Tech) Denied

“Defendant Virginia Tech’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 97) is DENIED.”

Collier v. Land & Sea Restaurant Co.
· 2013-09-18
Motions to dismiss (Fourth-Party Defendant Sam Rust Seafood & Produce) Granted

“Sam Rust’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 40, is GRANTED and the common law indemnification claim asserted in the Fourth-Party Complaint against Sam Rust is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Sloan v. Dulak
· 2012-04-11
Summary judgment (defendant officers) Granted in part

“Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.”

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. North American Van Lines, Inc.
· 2005-08-15
Motion to transfer venue (North American Van Lines) Granted

“For the reasons states, the court grants NAVL’s motion to change venue.”

National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. v. HHHunt Corp.
· 2013-01-29
Summary judgment (J. Davis Architects) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. ECF No. 51.”

United States v. Adams
· 2007-02-08
Motion to dismiss indictment (defendant) Denied

“The Defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED.”

Deel v. Bank of America, N.A.
· 2005-03-31
Motion to compel discovery (plaintiff) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that only a portion of the documents submitted for in camera review are privileged. Accordingly, BOA must turn over to the plaintiff those documents that are not protected by the attorney client privilege.”

Vanburen v. Virginia Highlands Orthopaedic Spine Center, LLC
· 2010-09-23
Motion for rule 54b certification (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is GRANTED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The fixed historical sample includes employment civil rights, wage-and-hour, tax, antitrust, other civil-rights, and disability matters, but three matters lack a retained nature-of-suit label. It is not representative of Turk’s full tenure.

A historical record

Judge Turk 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.