Robert Emmet Tehan

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

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

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Position
District judge
Status
Deceased
Served
1949–1975
Appointed by
Harry S. Truman (Democratic)
Commissioned
May 19, 1949
Education
Marquette University, A.B., 1927; Marquette University Law School, LL.B., 1929
Signed orders read
25

About Judge Tehan

Robert Emmet Tehan was a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Appointed by President Harry S Truman, Judge Tehan received a commission on May 19, 1949. Judge Tehan assumed senior status on June 30, 1971 and served until death on November 27, 1975.

How Judge Tehan decides

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

What persuades

Tehan required the nonmovant to identify a genuine factual dispute rather than rest on unsupported resistance to summary judgment.

“The defendant has failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issue of material fact for trial in the manner required by Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Procedural preferences

Tehan denied late amendment when it would expand discovery and delay an eventual merits trial.

“Because leave to amend the amended complaint has been sought after an undue delay which will prejudice the defendants by enlarging discovery so as to delay a trial of this action on the merits”

Cautions

Tehan protected attorney work product unless the requesting party showed good cause for production.

“Since the communication falls within the category of work product of an attorney, in the absence of a showing of good cause, it need not be produced.”

Signed rulings

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

United States v. Firnhaber
· 1971-10-15
Summary judgment (United States) Granted

“It is therefore ordered that judgment be entered for the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $2,583.36 plus interest and additions as provided by law.”

Serpe v. Eagle Ocean Transport Agency Co.
· 1971-01-21
Motion to quash service (foreign vessel owner) Granted

“the motion to quash service on Orient Mid-East Lines, Inc. must be and it is hereby granted.”

Breska v. Richardson
· 1972-06-30
Summary judgment (government) Granted

“That the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the decision of the defendant is affirmed.”

Taylor v. Gray
· 1974-04-30
Habeas petition (petitioner) Granted

“the originally established mandatory discharge date under said sentence, January 16, 1976, is ordered changed to November 6,1975.”

Monsour v. Gray
· 1973-04-17
Habeas petition (petitioner) Granted

“Counsel for petitioner is hereby directed to prepare an order granting relief as defined above and specifying the exact number of days to be credited against petitioner’s total sentence”

Schaak v. Schmidt
· 1971-07-07
Declaratory and injunctive relief (plaintiffs) Granted

“Counsel for the plaintiff will prepare an order for judgment pursuant to this opinion and submit it to opposing counsel for approval as to form.”

Scott Paper Co. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.
· 1972-05-25
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“That the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the second counterclaim is granted.”

Edwardsen v. Gray
· 1972-11-29
Habeas petition (petitioner) Granted

“The order of the Washington County Court of March 24, 1971, revoking probation and executing the sentences of imprisonment is vacated.”

Mcphail v. Bangor Punta Corp.
· 1973-03-13
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiffs) Denied

“That the plaintiffs’ motion filed January 4, 1973, for leave to amend their amended complaint is denied.”

Dura Corp. v. Milwaukee Hydraulic Products, Inc.
· 1965-04-02
Motions to compel (defendants) Denied

“The defendants’ motion for an order to compel plaintiff to produce Items Nos. 1 through 7, and 9 through 25 is hereby denied.”

Scott Paper Company v. Fort Howard Paper Company
· 1972-05-25
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“it is ordered that the defendant replead as directed herein by June 9, 1972.”

L. F. Strassheim Co. v. Gold Medal Folding Furniture Co.
· 1968-06-14
Declaratory patent invalidity claim (plaintiff) Denied

“We hold that both Patent 2,699,816 and Design Patent D189343 are valid.”

Patent infringement counterclaim (defendant) Granted

“The defendant is entitled to an injunction against the manufacture and sale by the plaintiff of folding chairs embodying the invention of Patent 2,699,816 and of Design Patent D189343.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No assigned docket records were returned for Tehan’s tenure, so no caseload mix or case-duration summary is available.

A historical record

Judge Tehan no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.