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

Harold Herman Greene

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia district Deceased · served 1978–1995 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 26 signed orders read

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

How Judge Greene decides

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

What persuades

He denied summary judgment when the partners’ competing accounts created genuine factual disputes on every claim.

“Since ‘reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence,’ the Court may not grant summary judgment.”

He treated strong disparate effects as circumstantial evidence that could reduce the amount of direct proof of discriminatory intent required at the preliminary stage.

“In the view of this Court, the correct standard is that alluded to by the Seventh Circuit in Arlington II and by the Fourth Circuit in Smith — that the extent of the proof of discriminatory intent required varies with the proof of discriminatory effect adduced; the more devastating to minorities the effect or impact of the landlord’s actions, the less evidence will be required of his actual intentions.”

Cautions

He enforced administrative filing deadlines when the claimant remained capable of managing her affairs and had expressly chosen not to pursue a complaint.

“For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the circumstances do not require equitable tolling, and therefore grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies within the requisite period of time.”

He described random urinalysis as a substantial privacy intrusion and required a government interest stronger than ordinary highway safety.

“In the view of this Court, the individual’s expectation of privacy and his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution outweigh the government’s legitimate interests here, and accordingly it would be unreasonable and hence unconstitutional to subject these motor vehicle operators to random drug testing.”

Signed rulings

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

Khan v. Meissner
· 1995-06-20
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss be and it is hereby GRANTED;”

Robinson v. Nussbaum
· 1997-07-24
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts One, Two and Five of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint be and it is hereby DENIED;”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Counts One Through Seven of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint be and it is hereby DENIED.”

Caudle v. Thomason
· 1996-04-25
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Count II of the amended complaint (slander) and DENIED with respect to Count I of the amended complaint (libel);”

Motion to lift discovery stay (plaintiff) Granted

“FURTHER- ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion to Lift Stay on Discovery be and it is hereby GRANTED;”

Motion to set oral argument (plaintiff) Denied

“FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion to Set Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss be and it is hereby DENIED;”

Motion for scheduling conference (plaintiff) Granted

“FURTHER ' ORDERED that .plaintiffs Motion for Scheduling Conference be and it is hereby GRANTED;”

Yamaha Corp. of America v. United States
· 1990-01-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss be and it is hereby granted except with respect to the issue of whether the products in the instant case fall within the exception discusse in Lever Bros., and, if so, whether plaintiff is estopped from raising that issue here by virtue of ABC.”

Yamaha Corp. of America v. United States
· 1990-09-14
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“ORDERED That defendants’ motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment be and it is hereby granted, and it is further”

Consolidated Edison Co. v. Herrington
· 1990-05-14
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“ORDERED That the complaints be and they are hereby dismissed.”

Aluminum Association v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
· 1990-09-17
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“Accordingly, the Court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss and deny plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.”

Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Denied
Speiser v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
· 1986-06-19
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the circumstances do not require equitable tolling, and therefore grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies within the requisite period of time.”

Ad Hoc Committee for Integrity in the Department of Energy v. Hodel
· 1984-09-28
Preliminary injunction (plaintiffs) Denied

“After consideration of the memoranda submitted by the parties, the arguments advanced at the hearing, and the entire record in this case, the Court has decided to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction and to grant the motion to dismiss.”

Motions to dismiss (government) Granted
Zemel v. Board of Governors
· 1994-11-29
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated, the Court will grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment and deny plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Miller v. U.S. International Development Cooperation Agency
· 1993-03-31
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons stated, the Court is denying plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted
Trout v. Garrett
· 1990-07-09
Motion for attorneys fees (plaintiffs) Granted

“ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for the thirty-five individual relief proceedings before the Special Master be and it is hereby granted.”

A historical record

Judge Greene 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.