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

Oliver Gasch

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia district Deceased · served 1965–1981 Appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic) 18 signed orders read

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

How Judge Gasch decides

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

What persuades

He demanded a reasoned agency response tied to the governing statute and the scientific record before accepting regulatory inaction.

“The agency has been blind to the source of its delegated power and has failed to take a hard look at the results of the study and their relevance to the Horse Protection Act.”

He treated mandamus as unavailable without a plainly defined, nondiscretionary obligation.

“the duty must be clear and indisputable.”

Cautions

He applied Rule 11’s reasonable-inquiry obligation despite counsel’s claim that improper removal was a good-faith mistake.

“However, since Rule 11 imposes affirmative obligations upon the defendants, the fact that the case was removed in good faith will not protect them from sanctions.”

He required the government to justify prolonged agency delay before resisting a fee award to the prevailing party.

“Defendants concede that plaintiff was a prevailing party and have failed to show that the agency’s nearly two-year delay was substantially justified.”

Signed rulings

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

United States v. Baker
· 1967-01-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“In view of the foregoing, defendant’s motions to dismiss and to suppress are denied.”

Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied
Motion for production (defendant) Denied

“Finally, with respect to the defendant’s motion for production, where these requests have not been rendered moot by production of the material sought and the intervening hearing, the Court finds they are without merit and, accordingly, this motion will be denied.”

Kinsey v. Legg, Mason & Co.
· 1974-02-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant Legg, Mason & Company) Granted

“Ordered that defendants’ motion to dismiss the third-party complaint be and the same is hereby granted;”

Motion to intervene (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) Denied

“Ordered that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s motion to intervene be and the same is hereby denied ;”

Elanex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Wegner & Bretschneider, P.C.
· 1989-09-08
Motion to remand and for sanctions (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and for Sanctions be, and hereby is, granted;”

Motion for more definite statement (defendants) Moot / procedural

“ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement be, and hereby is, denied as moot;”

National Treasury Employees Union v. Bush
· 1989-07-12
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion be, and hereby is, denied;”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss be, and hereby is, granted;”

National Coalition for the Homeless v. United States Veterans' Administration
· 1989-05-22
Motion to enforce injunction (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“Thus, plaintiffs’ motion to compel HHS to accept applications for all suitable properties is granted. The request to bar DOD from transferring the Naval Reserve Center in Huntsville, Alabama is denied because DOD has stated why the property cannot be declared excess.”

Lawson v. Nationwide Mortgage Corp.
· 1986-02-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant Family Federal Savings and Loan) Granted in part

“For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion only as to the TILA claim.”

Steffan v. Cheney
· 1989-07-21
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss be, and hereby is, denied;”

Peter J. Statile Associates, Inc. v. Panama Canal Co.
· 1977-11-16
Motions to dismiss (defendant Panama Canal Company) Granted

“ORDERED that defendant Panama Canal Company’s motion to dismiss be, and it hereby is, granted.”

Meister Brau, Inc. v. Rheingold Breweries, Inc.
· 1969-01-17
Motions to dismiss (defendant Rheingold Breweries, Inc.) Granted

“service being accomplished by the Marshal of the Eastern District of New York, should be quashed and the motion to dismiss as to Rheingold granted.”

Irons v. Schuyler
· 1970-10-26
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Ordered that the defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted except insofar as has already been ordered in regard to the maintenance of a current index.”

Goodwin v. HOME BUYING INVESTMENT CO., INC.
· 1973-01-04
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Ordered that summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, entered for all defendants.”

Trahan v. Regan
· 1982-12-21
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“In summary, then, plaintiffs’ suit must be dismissed pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) because:”

A historical record

Judge Gasch 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.