John S. Kaull

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia magistrate Retired 2015 · served 2001–2015 12 signed orders read

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

How Judge Kaull decides

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

What persuades

When a party relies on advice of counsel, the judge treated fairness as requiring disclosure of the facts, communications, research, and work product bearing on that advice, while ending the waiver when the underlying suit was filed so later trial strategy remained protected.

“the waiver created by assertion of the advice of counsel defense includes work product of the Daniels Law Firm, whether opinion or fact, whether the same was communicated to Swiger or was only considered in the process of forming any opinion”

In a wage-and-hour indemnity dispute, the judge would not allow state-law contribution or indemnification theories to transfer an employer's federal statutory duty to pay wages.

“This court cannot and will not engraft an indemnity clause on the FLSA where there is none.”

In a Social Security appeal involving obesity, the judge required an actual prescribed treatment and clear evidence that following it would restore the ability to work before noncompliance could support denial of benefits.

“A treating source's statement that an individual 'should' lose weight or has 'been advised' to get more exercise is not prescribed treatment.”

Procedural preferences

The judge expected lawyers to comply with filing deadlines and page limits, and he enforced those rules even when the challenged filing did not affect the merits analysis.

“The Court is a strong believer that the rules of the Court exist to create order out of chaos. Therefore, it is imperative that those rules be followed.”

For protective orders, the judge required concrete facts and articulated reasoning rather than generalized privacy or burden claims.

“the undersigned finds that from a totality of the facts and presentations before the Court, Small has presented specific facts and articulated reasoning establishing good cause for the Court to enter a protective order”

On collateral review, the judge applied the retroactivity framework strictly and did not treat Booker as a watershed procedural rule for convictions already final before that decision.

“this Court holds that Booker does not apply retroactively”

Cautions

Consent to a search or entry had to be affirmative under the totality of the circumstances; passive acquiescence to an officer's assumed authority was not enough.

“Magistrate Judge Kaull found that Officer Ammons 'held a preconceived view that he would escort [Harvey] into the house even though he did not express that to Defendant at any time before entry.'”

Signed rulings

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

White v. Barnhart
· 2004-02-17
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“The plaintiffs motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 16) is GRANTED-IN-PART”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“The defendant's motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 10) is DENIED”

Daniel v. United States
· 2005-01-31
Motion to vacate sentence (petitioner) Denied

“the Court DENIES Daniel's motion to vacate, set aside or correct her sentence (crim.dkt. 76) and DISMISSES her petition WITH PREJUDICE”

In re the Extradition of Coleman
· 2007-02-05
Extradition request (United States on behalf of Canada) Granted

“the United States Government, acting on behalf of the Government of Canada, has provided 'evidence sufficient to sustain the charge[s] [against Coleman]'”

McDougal v. G & S Tobacco Dealers, L.L.C.
· 2010-04-30
Summary judgment (defendants/third-party plaintiffs) Granted in part

“Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment [DE 82] is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART AS FOLLOWS”

Summary judgment (third-party defendants) Granted

“Third-Party Defendants Samuel Oliverio And Cheryl Jean Oliverio's Motion For Summary Judgment [DE 83] is GRANTED”

Motions to strike (defendants/third-party plaintiffs) Granted

“G & S Tobacco Dealers, LLC and Cindy Woodward's Motion To Strike Oliverios' Reply To Response To Motion For Summary Judgment [DE 88] is GRANTED”

JJK Mineral Co., LLC v. Swiger
· 2013-02-22
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel [DE 34] is Granted In Part and Denied In Part”

Motion to quash (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant Swiger's Motion To Quash [DE 31] is Denied In Part and Granted In Part”

Ogden v. Astrue
· 2009-01-05
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“The Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket No. 14) is DENIED”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“The Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket No. 11) is GRANTED, in part”

United States v. Cameron
· 2008-04-18
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“the undersigned accordingly recommends Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Docket Entry 17] be DENIED”

Small v. Ramsey
· 2012-03-06
Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

“Small's Objection and Motion to Strike Defendant State Farm's Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion For Protective Order [DE 282] is DENIED”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Small's Motion to strike Nationwide's Objections To Small's Proposed Protective Order [DE 109] is DENIED AS MOOT”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs Motion To Strike Reply of Nationwide [DE 118] is DENIED AS MOOT”

Motion for protective order (defendant) Granted

“State Farm's Objection and Motion For Protective Order [DE 307] is GRANTED and the subpoena duces tecum and notice of 30(b)(6) deposition are QUASHED”

Motion for protective order (intervenor) Granted

“Nationwide's Objection and Motion For Protective Order [DE 311] is GRANTED and the subpoena duces tecum and notice of 30(b)(6) deposition are QUASHED”

Motion for protective order (plaintiff) Granted

“the undersigned finds that from a totality of the facts and presentations before the Court, Small has presented specific facts and articulated reasoning establishing good cause for the Court to enter a protective order”

Lucas v. McBride
· 2007-08-02
Motions to dismiss (respondent) Granted

“the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment be, and the same hereby are, GRANTED”

Summary judgment (respondent) Granted
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Petitioner's Section 2254 petition be, and the same hereby is, DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”

Motion for investigator (petitioner) Moot / procedural

“the Petitioner's request for an investigator shall be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot”

Ault v. Waid
· 2009-04-08
Summary judgment (respondent) Granted

“Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket # 25) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED”

Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Stoney Ault's Petition in this matter be, and the same hereby is, DENIED, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the docket of this Court”

Shinaberry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
· 2008-01-03
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“I accordingly recommend the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket Entry 12] be GRANTED”

Judgment on the pleadings (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Docket Entry 9] be DENIED”

United States v. Harvey
· 2012-10-25
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“DENIED the first motion to suppress (dkt. no. 20)”

Motion to suppress (defendant) Granted

“GRANTED the second motion to suppress (dkt. no. 21), and SUPPRESSED the firearm”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

A 20-docket historical enumeration from Kaull's active tenure included eight wage-and-hour matters, three employment cases, and individual tax, habeas, and labor matters, along with miscellaneous proceedings. The motion sample below is a historical slice rather than a complete account of his docket.

A historical record

Judge Kaull 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.