Terence Thomas Evans

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin district Retired 1995 · served 1979–1995 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 17 signed orders read

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

How Judge Evans decides

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

What persuades

He required transaction-specific evidence before extending environmental successor liability to an asset purchaser.

“This is not a situation in which a sale was structured to avoid a fairly likely potential liability.”

He treated state courts as fully competent to enforce federal supremacy when sovereign immunity prevented a federal remedy.

“A state court is perfectly competent to enforce the supremacy clause”

Procedural preferences

He reserved Rule 60 relief for exceptional circumstances and rejected attempts to use it to repeat previously decided arguments.

“Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief only in exceptional circumstances.”

At summary judgment he left disputed limitations and discovery-rule questions to the factfinder when reasonable inferences could differ.

“If reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence, however, [summary judgment] should not be [granted].”

Cautions

He declined Rule 11 sanctions where both sides advanced substantial arguments in a close dispute.

“The issue here is close. Merit abounds on both sides.”

Signed rulings

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

Banton v. Schroeder Moving Systems, Inc.
· 1992-09-28
Summary judgment (intervenor United Van Lines against James Banton) Granted

“summary judgment is GRANTED against James F. Banton in the amount of $15,635.25, plus costs.”

Summary judgment (intervenor United Van Lines against Susan Banton) Moot / procedural

“summary judgment against Susan Banton is DENIED.”

Banton v. Schroeder Moving Systems, Inc.
· 1993-05-19
Summary judgment (intervenor United Van Lines against Susan Banton) Granted

“summary judgment is GRANTED against Susan Banton in the amount of $15,635.25, plus costs.”

Rounds v. Milwaukee County Community Correctional Center
· 1994-08-29
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the defense motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”

Great Northern Corp. v. Henry Molded Products, Inc.
· 1994-09-29
Summary judgment (Great Northern and Fibreform Containers) Denied

“Great Northern’s and Fibreform Containers’s motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.”

Fox River Valley Railroad v. Department of Revenue
· 1994-09-29
Motions to dismiss (Wisconsin Department of Revenue) Granted

“DOR’s motion to dismiss Fox River Rail's counts 2 through 4 is GRANTED and those counts are DISMISSED.”

Motions to stay (Wisconsin Department of Revenue) Denied

“DOR’s motion to stay further proceedings with respect to count 1 is DENIED.”

Doe v. Ed Paukstat
· 1994-09-29
Motion to consolidate (plaintiff) Granted

“The pending motion to consolidate them is GRANTED”

Motions to dismiss and for summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“all motions to dismiss and for summary judgment are DENIED.”

Smith v. Rainsoft Water Conditioning Co.
· 1994-04-21
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“defendant’s motion is GRANTED IN PART — the claims based on the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are DISMISSED — and DENIED IN PART.”

Hunt's Generator Committee v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.
· 1994-09-29
Summary judgment (defendant Mid-America) Granted

“the motion of Mid-America for summary judgment is GRANTED; Mid-America is DISMISSED from the case.”

Brocksopp Engineering, Inc. v. Bach-Simpson Ltd.
· 1991-04-18
Motion to vacate default (defendants) Granted

“The defendants’ motion to vacate the clerk’s entry of default is GRANTED.”

Motion to allow appearance (defendants) Granted

“The defendants’ motion to allow the appearance of Paul T. Fox, James W. Marks, Bradley S. Block, and Michael Silverman is hereby GRANTED.”

Ziemer v. Wisconsin, Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations
· 1988-08-30
Motions to dismiss (State of Wisconsin) Granted

“I GRANT the state’s motion and DISMISS the case. The dismissal, however, is without prejudice so that Mrs. Ziemer can refile her claim in a Wisconsin circuit court.”

Suburban Video, Inc. v. City of Delafield
· 1988-08-29
Motion for permanent injunction (plaintiff Superb Video) Granted in part

“Superb Video’s motion for an injunction is DENIED in large part and GRANTED in small part.”

Blunt Ellis & Loewi, Inc. v. Hlavinka
· 1989-05-18
Motion for injunction and stay (plaintiffs) Denied

“the petitioners’ request for an injunction and stay must be DENIED.”

Motion for sanctions (plaintiffs) Denied

“both sides’ motions for rule 11 sanctions based on frivolity are also DENIED.”

Motion for sanctions (defendants) Denied

A historical record

Judge Evans 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.