🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Fred M. Winner

United States District Court for the District of Colorado district Retired 1984 · served 1970–1984 Appointed by Richard Nixon (Republican) 18 signed orders read

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

How Judge Winner decides

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

What persuades

He gave substantial weight to coordinated agency interpretations in a highly technical regulatory field.

“At the outset, plaintiffs face the hurdle that two agencies of peculiar and extreme expertise reach a conclusion diametric to the position of plaintiffs, and, certainly, the determinations of these agencies in this highly technical area are entitled to great weight.”

He looked past labor-contract labels to the actual degree of control when determining joint employment.

“The Court finds and concludes that within the meaning of the Act Ramon Medelez and defendants were joint employers of the farm laborers in question.”

He enforced an insurer's timely reservation of rights where no party showed prejudicial reliance.

“The plaintiff is not estopped from claiming non-coverage and it has not waived its right to make this claim.”

Procedural preferences

He treated the statutory bar on federal tax injunctions as controlling even when the government's conduct drew sharp criticism.

“I have no jurisdiction to enjoin collection of taxes by the I.R.S.”

He refused to create witness immunity without authority delegated by Congress.

“The power to immunize potential criminal defendants is a power which should not be attempted by all of the judges of the United States unless and until Congress delegates that jurisdiction to the judiciary”

He favored developing disputed facts through sworn testimony and cross-examination rather than accepting unsupported secrecy assertions.

“I hope that all of the facts can be developed in open court, under oath, subject to cross-examination”

Cautions

In criminal protest cases he excluded moral or political disagreement offered as a substitute for a legally recognized defense.

“No evidence will be received offered to prove either the morality or immorality of nuclear weapons or nuclear power.”

Signed rulings

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

City of Aurora Ex Rel. Colorado v. Erwin
· 1982-03-05
Appeal from magistrate judgment (defendant) Denied

“I affirm the magistrate in all respects, not because I think that there was no ‘clear error’, but because I think that there was no error.”

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Trailways, Inc.
· 1981-11-13
Claim for injunctive relief (EEOC) Granted

“Counsel should work on phrasing an injunction in line with this opinion”

Republic Insurance v. Piper
· 1981-07-01
Claim for declaratory judgment (plaintiff insurer) Granted

“I find and conclude that the policy in question does not cover the injuries suffered by Krystal Ervin.”

United States v. Quintana
· 1981-04-27
Motion to revoke bond (government) Granted

“the properties posted by them as security for defendant’s release are ordered forfeited to the United States”

Motion for release pending appeal (defendant) Denied

“it is intended that this memorandum shall constitute the required ‘order refusing . . . release’”

United States v. Feeney
· 1980-10-20
Motion to quash subpoena (Philip B. Heymann) Denied

“The motion of Philip B. Heymann to quash the subpoena served on him is denied.”

Motion for protective order (intervenor John C. White) Moot / procedural

“The motion of intervenor John White for a protective order was orally withdrawn today”

United States v. McMichael
· 1980-05-21
Motion for judicial immunity (defendant) Denied

“unless and until the Tenth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court tells me I have the right to grant effective ‘judicial immunity’ I shall continue with my belief that I have no such power and I shall grant no immunity except as Congress has said it can be granted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003.”

Trautwein v. Milbachler
· 1980-01-29
Request for preliminary injunction (plaintiffs) Denied

“the request for a preliminary injunction is denied.”

Default judgment (plaintiffs) Denied

“The motion for default is denied.”

Motion for extension of time (plaintiffs) Denied

“plaintiffs’ motion for more time to file another brief is denied.”

United States v. Best
· 1979-06-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant DeWayne Ahrendy) Denied

“Except for the few non-dispositive motions orally granted at the hearing on May 31, 1979, all motions filed by defendants are denied.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant Rebecca Margolis) Denied
Motions to dismiss (defendant Dan Chancellor) Denied
Motion in limine (government) Granted

“No evidence will be received offered to prove either the morality or immorality of nuclear weapons or nuclear power.”

United States v. Dias
· 1978-11-16
Post trial motion (defendant) Moot / procedural

“the motion filed in this case was withdrawn”

United States v. Alberico
· 1977-12-23
Motion to disqualify (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion to disqualify me is denied.”

Colorado Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Train
· 1974-02-15
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“These are the reasons I have granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment.”

Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Denied

“summary jugment shall enter against plaintiffs and in favor of the defendants.”

Request for attorneys fees (plaintiffs' counsel) Denied

“the request for an award of attorneys fees is denied”

Bramble v. Kleindienst
· 1973-04-02
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“we order that plaintiff’s complaint and the action be dismissed.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Winner's reported decisions include environmental regulation, employment, criminal procedure, tax, insurance, federal administration, civil rights, and commercial disputes. No retained electronic records are available to quantify his caseload.

A historical record

Judge Winner 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.