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

Henry Albert Schweinhaut

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia (now U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) district Deceased · served 1944–1956 Appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic) 10 signed orders read

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

How Judge Schweinhaut decides

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

What persuades

A concrete showing that an unconscious plaintiff could not gather evidence at the scene, coupled with counsel’s diligent but unsuccessful efforts, established good cause for discovery.

“where the plaintiff was rendered unconscious and unable to obtain on-the-spot information, which the defendant was equipped and able immediately to gather, the rules should be liberally construed so as to ascertain the truth and make facts available in advance of the trial to either party, upon a showing of due diligence.”

A statutory directive prevailed over an agency allocation formula when the formula relied on the very historical conditions Congress said should not control.

“It seems clear that the use of the ‘historical’ basis, to the extent employed here, in respect of the increased quotas for September, is directly opposed to the legislative direction”

Cautions

He viewed an existing comprehensive statutory compensation system as displacing a second recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

“those members of a class for which a comprehensive system of compensation has otherwise been provided may not seek benefits under the Act.”

He rejected arguments that procedural fairness could vary according to a litigant’s reputation or perceived character.

“it cannot be said that for John, who is a good man, one rule applies, but for Jack, who is not a good man, another rule applies.”

Signed rulings

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

Clark v. Dulles
· 1955-02-28
Motions to dismiss (government) Denied

“The motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment are both denied”

Summary judgment (government) Denied
Nathan v. Dulles
· 1955-02-28
Motions to dismiss (government) Denied

“The motion to dismiss the complaint is denied”

Mittler v. McGrath
· 1950-03-31
Petition for judicial relief (plaintiff) Denied

“Her petition for judicial relief must he denied”

Summary judgment (government) Granted

“the government is entitled to summary judgment.”

United States v. Kleinman
· 1952-10-06
Criminal charge (United States) Denied

“it is hereby adjudged that they are not guilty.”

Wham v. United States
· 1948-09-27
Summary judgment (United States) Granted

“the motion for summary judgment is granted.”

United States v. Slaughter
· 1950-03-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“The motion to dismiss must be denied.”

Motion to inspect grand jury minutes (defendant) Denied

“The motion to inspect the grand jury minutes is also denied.”

Betts v. Lonas
· 1948-12-20
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment is affirmed.”

Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Anderson
· 1946-09-23
Motions to dismiss (government) Denied

“The motion to dismiss is denied.”

Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“a preliminary injunction will issue”

Smith v. Washington Gas Light Co.
· 1948-02-02
Motion to produce documents (plaintiff) Granted in part

“the motion for their production should be and is granted. The application for the Leonard memorandum of March 31, 1947, is-,, denied”

Newell v. Capital Transit Co.
· 1948-02-04
Motion to produce documents (plaintiff) Granted in part

“The application for the statements of the witnesses Anderson, Boaz, Oxford and Graham is granted. The application for the statement of the witness Hutchinson is denied.”

A historical record

Judge Schweinhaut 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.