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

Joyce Hens Green

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia district Deceased · served 1979–1995 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 20 signed orders read

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

How Judge Green decides

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

What persuades

She found a minimally supported affidavit enough to create a genuine dispute over an owner’s consent to illegal use of property.

“Claimant has met his burden, albeit minimally, and succeeded in raising a genuine dispute as to whether he consented to the use of defendant property for the facilitation of drug offenses.”

She gave substantial weight to newly available medical evidence that could alter a disability determination.

“It is clear that justice mandates that this additional evidence be considered and evaluated.”

Cautions

She declined to imply nationwide service authority from statutory language that did not expressly confer it.

“Congress did not expressly authorize nationwide service of process in 12 U.S.C. § 1818(n), and, in the absence of any legislative history to the contrary, this Court will not liberally interpret the term ‘power’ to imply such a grant of authority.”

She required plaintiffs asserting statutory property rights to connect their own use of the property to the protected interest.

“As the church’s pastor and a longtime member of the board of trustees, respectively, Mr. Hargraves and Ms. Cooper ‘hold’ the church property in the sense that word has been interpreted to convey under Section 1982.”

Signed rulings

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

Crooker v. U. S. Department of State
· 1979-10-30
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of defendant and denies plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment and attorney fees.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Motion for attorneys fees (plaintiff) Denied
Texas Oil & Gas Corp. v. Andrus
· 1980-09-25
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the same reasons given in the Court’s decision today in a related action filed by plaintiff, Texas Oil & Gas Corp. v. Andrus, 498 F.Supp. 668 (D.D.C. 1980), summary judgment appropriately can be entered in favor of defendant Andrus and against plaintiff.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Ford v. Schweiker
· 1981-09-30
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons set forth below in this Memorandum Opinion, defendant’s motion is denied, and, while the Court finds the undisputed facts to weigh in favor of plaintiff, her motion also is denied, in light of Court’s remand of this case to defendant’s Administrative Law Judge.”

Motion for judgment affirming agency decision (defendant) Denied
Welch v. Donovan
· 1982-11-01
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted in part

“ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss shall be and hereby is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in this Order, and it is”

Preliminary injunction (plaintiffs) Denied

“FURTHER ORDERED, that plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction shall be and hereby is denied, and it is”

Hirschfeld v. Securities & Exchange Commission
· 1985-06-20
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss this complaint for failure to state a claim is hereby granted.”

Christmas v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
· 1985-10-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant District of Columbia) Granted

“For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants defendant’s motion and dismisses the case in its entirety.”

Stover v. Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
· 1987-07-02
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion will be granted in part and denied in part.”

Hawthorne v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
· 1988-10-31
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED that WMATA’s motion to dismiss is granted, and this action be and it hereby is dismissed.”

Carberry v. Hess
· 1990-06-29
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.”

United States v. Property Identified as 908 T Street
· 1991-03-12
Summary judgment (plaintiff United States) Denied

“For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is denied.”

Summers v. United States Department of Justice
· 1991-11-14
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is granted, defendant’s motion is denied, and this case is dismissed.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied
Peterson Farms I v. Madigan
· 1991-12-17
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Having considered the arguments raised at oral argument and in the pleadings, and for the following reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss shall be denied.”

A historical record

Judge Green 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.