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

Joseph Cornelius Waddy

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia district Deceased · served 1967–1978 Appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic) 20 signed orders read

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

How Judge Waddy decides

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

What persuades

He treated public inspection as central to the Freedom of Information Act’s ability to expose the meaning and value of agency action.

“if the Freedom of Information Act is to be effective it must allow the public to determine for itself, unfettered from the bureaucratic restraints of self-interested officials, the meaning and value of agency actions embodied in public records.”

He understood the 1972 federal-employment remedy as protecting a preexisting constitutional right against racial discrimination by the federal government.

“the substantive right that the Equal Opportunity Act of 1972 protects, namely, the right not to be subjected to racial discrimination by the Federal government, predates the legislation, and is based on the due process clause of the 5th Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.”

Cautions

He balanced requested disclosure against the individual privacy invasion it would cause.

“protection of the individual from the potential invasion of privacy outweighs the public interest purpose for disclosure.”

He enforced timely administrative exhaustion in federal-employment discrimination litigation.

“plaintiff has failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies”

Signed rulings

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

Whitehead v. Alexander
· 1977-07-27
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment will be denied and defendant’s cross-motion will be granted.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted
Fuller v. Alexander
· 1977-07-27
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“plaintiff’s motion will be granted.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment will be denied; defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment will be granted.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted
National Treasury Employees Union v. Campbell
· 1977-06-30
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“the motion to dismiss should be granted with respect to Counts I and IV of the complaint, and that the motion for summary judgment should be granted with respect to Counts II and III of the complaint.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted
Motion to add parties (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“plaintiff’s motions to add parties, having no effect upon the Court’s determination of defendants’ motion, should be denied as moot.”

Central State Bank v. Bloom
· 1977-07-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, there being no genuine issue of any material fact, defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss should be denied.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied and plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied as moot.”

Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Dilley v. Alexander
· 1977-07-27
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed in these four consolidated cases will be granted, and plaintiffs’ cross-motion will be denied in each case.”

Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Denied
Stanback v. Harris
· 1978-01-20
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (Fort Lincoln New Town Corporation) Granted

“ORDERED that defendant Fort Lincoln New Town Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, treated as a Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be, and the same hereby is, granted”

Summary judgment (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development) Granted

“ORDERED that defendant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development’s Motion for Summary Judgment be, and the same hereby is, granted”

Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Denied

“ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment be, and the same hereby is, denied.”

Stockton v. Harris
· 1977-05-17
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied and defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss should be granted.”

Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted
Eastern Canvas Products, Inc. v. Brown
· 1977-05-25
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“defendants’ motion to dismiss, treated as a motion for summary judgment, will be granted and plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment will be denied.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Federation of Homemakers v. Schmidt
· 1974-10-29
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“For these reasons the regulation should be upheld and defendants’ motion for summary judgment hereby is granted.”

Public Citizen v. Sampson
· 1974-07-24
Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Denied

“the motion of plaintiffs for summary judgment is denied and the motion of defendant to dismiss is granted.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted
Harrison v. Butz
· 1973-05-24
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“plaintiff is entitled as a matter of law to a summary judgment declaring her entitlement to a hearing and remanding this case to the Civil Service Commission with instructions to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to grant her a hearing.”

Owens v. U. S. Bureau of Prisons
· 1974-06-12
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment was entered June 10, 1974.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

A historical record

Judge Waddy 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.