George Howard Jr.
Judge Howard no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Howard decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He required proof connecting an adverse employment decision to protected activity, even where the employee lacked tenure.
“While it is plain that even an employee ‘at will’ or nontenured may not be discharged because of his or her exercise of First Amendment Rights, the plaintiff has not demonstrated, and the Court so finds, that defendant’s decision not to re-employ her was because of her exercise of First Amendment Rights.”
He required agency decisions to rest on a reasoned evaluation of relevant factors before permitting environmentally significant action.
“The Court must conclude that the COE’s decision that the impacts of the project lack significance on the quality of the human environment and the permit should issue is not founded on a reasoned evaluation ‘of the relevant factors’ and that the COE’s decision to not prepare an EIS was a ‘clear error of judgment.’”
Procedural preferences
He did not treat a nonmovant’s failure to respond as an automatic entitlement to summary judgment.
“However, the Court is not persuaded that defendants are entitled to a judgment absolutely inasmuch as Rule 56(e) makes it crystal clear that if the nonmovant fails to respond, summary judgment shall be entered, ‘if appropriate’.”
He calculated civil-rights fees using prevailing local market rates before considering any enhancement.
“‘Reasonable fees’ in federal civil rights actions are to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community.”
Cautions
He declined claims that would effectively require a federal court to replace the state utility regulator’s rate-setting judgment.
“It is clear that no matter how they characterize their objectives, plaintiffs’ goal would, in essence, end in judicial ratemaking.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court now denies defendant’s request for a partial summary judgment and his motion to dismiss.”
“Accordingly, defendant’s motion to suppress is hereby granted.”
“the Court rejects the motions of Broken Bow, Oklahoma, to quash service and dismiss this proceeding as to it for lack of jurisdiction.”
“Accordingly, the motion to set aside the settlement order and for reinstatement of party defendants is denied.”
“Accordingly, the joint motion for recusal filed by the defendants on March 21st is hereby denied.”
“Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment of Mid-Continent is granted.”
“The motion to withdraw the motion to dismiss is granted.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is moot.”
“Accordingly, the total amount of fees and costs due plaintiff is $61,646.80.”
“Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“A. Larry Haney is hereby released, pending sentencing, upon the following conditions:”
“B. The request of Gary Haney and Leon Frayer for release pending sentencing is denied.”
“Plaintiffs’ federal claims under RICO, declaratory judgment, § 1983 and § 1985 are dismissed with prejudice. The remaining pendent state claims are dismissed without prejudice if plaintiffs still wish to pursue them in the appropriate state forum.”
“Accordingly, the motion to enforce settlement is granted; the motion to shorten time for responding is moot.”
“Accordingly, the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 54.5 days (N = 12).
The enumerated dockets include civil-rights and prisoner matters, habeas petitions, personal-injury and product-liability cases, contracts and insurance, environmental litigation, land condemnation, and government collection matters. This mixed historical enumeration is not a career-wide caseload estimate.
A historical record
Judge Howard 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.