Robert Jackson Staker

United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia district Deceased · served 1979–2005 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 25 signed orders read

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

How Judge Staker decides

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

What persuades

Staker treated railroad employees' contract and tort claims as matters for the statutory labor-resolution process when the employer offered a nonfrivolous link to the collective bargaining agreement.

“plaintiffs’ claims are subject to the dispute-resolution mechanism of the Railway Labor Act and this court is without subject matter jurisdiction over them.”

In disability review, Staker required medical evidence rather than lay judgment before discounting the severity of professional impairment reports.

“a finding to this effect must be based on medical evidence, not the opinion of a layperson.”

Procedural preferences

Staker reversed a bankruptcy compensation arrangement that lacked safeguards separating professional charges from a trustee's capped statutory compensation.

“the arrangement approved by the bankruptcy court here, without any safeguards on how the trustee charges the time spent by his corporation, has the potential for violating the intent and purpose of sections 326(a) and 328(b), and constituted an abuse of discretion by that court.”

Staker required a removing defendant to substantiate the amount in controversy with strong evidence rather than rely principally on settlement discussions.

“the defendant has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that it is highly probable the plaintiffs would recover a judgment in excess of $75,000 if this case should go to trial.”

Signed rulings

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

Hensley v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
· 1993-09-28
Summary judgment (railroad defendants) Granted

“The defendants’ motion for summary judgment be, and the same hereby, SUSTAINED and GRANTED;”

Queen v. United States (In Re Queen)
· 1992-09-18
Bankruptcy appeal (debtor) Denied

“For the reasons set forth in this opinion, it is ORDERED that the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED.”

Beckwith Realty, Inc. v. United States
· 1989-04-17
Motions to dismiss (United States) Granted

“The defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be, and the same hereby is, SUSTAINED and GRANTED:”

Grimmett v. Heckler
· 1985-04-17
Motions to remand (disability claimant) Granted

“For the reasons stated, it is hereby ORDERED that this action be, and the same is, remanded to the Secretary.”

Assistant United States Trustee v. John Galt, Ltd. (In Re John Galt, Ltd.)
· 1989-06-27
Bankruptcy appeal (Assistant United States Trustee) Granted

“the appeal of the Assistant United States Trustee from the November 17, 1988 order of the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of West Virginia be, and the same hereby is, SUSTAINED and GRANTED.”

Zurich Insurance v. Uptowner Inns, Inc.
· 1990-01-04
Summary judgment (insurer) Granted

“the motion for summary judgment of the plaintiff in this declaratory judgment of the plaintiff in this declaratory judgment action be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.”

United States v. H.G.D. & J. Mining Co. (In Re H.G.D. & J. Mining Co.)
· 1986-11-24
Bankruptcy appeal (United States) Granted

“the appeal of the United States of America from the ruling of February 3, 1986, of the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of West Virginia be, and the same hereby is, SUSTAINED and GRANTED.”

Continental Resources & Mineral Corp. v. Continental Insurance
· 1982-09-13
Motions to remand (plaintiffs) Granted

“it is hereby ORDERED that this case be REMANDED, in its entirety, to the Circuit Court of Mingo County for further proceedings.”

Reich v. Tri-State Energy Products, Inc.
· 1993-11-01
Request for injunction (Secretary of Labor) Granted in part

“an order will be entered granting injunctive relief against the defendants comprehending only Tri-State’s property at the plant included in categories (a) and (b) above”

Holloway v. Hechler
· 1992-09-29
Motions to dismiss (state officials) Granted

“Accordingly, the defendants’ motion that the plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed and judgment entered in favor of the defendants is GRANTED.”

Matlack, Inc. v. Treadway
· 1990-02-13
Motions to dismiss (United States) Granted

“the motion of the United States to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.”

Linville v. Price
· 1983-07-22
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the complaint is hereby DISMISSED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The sampled assigned matters included commercial, benefits, collection, coal, transportation, and tort disputes. The sample is descriptive and is not a complete historical caseload measure.

A historical record

Judge Staker 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.