Robert L. Vining Jr.
Judge Vining no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Vining decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Vining distinguished a contingent asset with existing legal substance from a claim that had not yet accrued.
“There is a difference between a ‘potential claim’ and a ‘claim with potential.’”
He rejected discovery where account activity could not reliably show that customers acted on the defendants' recommendations.
“many of the customers have nondiscretionary accounts, and their trading activity would not necessarily be based upon recommendations made by the defendants; therefore, any information regarding the trading in these accounts would be irrelevant and would not be calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Procedural preferences
Vining enforced discovery and pretrial deadlines where the case had already experienced substantial delay.
“The motion to amend the pretrial order was filed over a year after the close of discovery and after the initial pretrial order was submitted on November 20, 1984. Furthermore, this case has already been continued on the trial calendar twice.”
He denied amendment where the proposed pleading could not cure the jurisdictional defect.
“The proposed amendment would not cure this lack of jurisdiction; consequently, the motion to amend is DENIED.”
Cautions
Vining used fee-shifting to address an argument that binding precedent had squarely foreclosed.
“The show cause order was designed to insure that the city was not asserting, either knowingly or carelessly, a patently frivolous claim.”
He required proof of the actual terms of a lost insurance policy rather than inference from other carriers' forms.
“Because the plaintiff has been unable to produce a copy of the Peerless Insurance policy and has failed to present evidence that would allow this court to establish the specific terms and conditions of that policy, Peerless’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“The motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 65] is GRANTED.”
“Peerless’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“The court finds that the motion amend the pretrial order is untimely and is, therefore, DENIED.”
“The plaintiffs’ motion to compel certain discovery was filed after the close of discovery. Consequently, the motion is DENIED.”
“In summary, the plaintiffs’ motions to amend the pretrial order, for reconsideration, and to compel are DENIED.”
“the plaintiffs motions for protective order and to compel discovery are DENIED.”
“the court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery.”
“The defendants’ motion for protective order is GRANTED.”
“Therefore, the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED”
“the plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED”
“the plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Record is DENIED.”
“the court concludes that the objection of the defendant should be sustained and the case remanded to the Magistrate for a consideration of the plaintiff’s further claim”
“the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the plaintiffs claim for mental and emotional distress and the defendants’ motions to dismiss Counts Y and VIII of the complaint, alleging a violation of the Consumer Products Safety Act, are GRANTED.”
“the defendants’ motions to dismiss Counts Y and VIII of the complaint, alleging a violation of the Consumer Products Safety Act, are GRANTED.”
“the dismissal is, therefore, AFFIRMED.”
“defendant City of Atlanta’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“this court concludes that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs incident to the defense of the city's ante litem argument.”
“Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The three cross-referenced dockets involved civil RICO and fraud claims and a federal tax-refund dispute. They were selected because signed decisions could be tied to retained docket records and do not represent a complete caseload sample.
A historical record
Judge Vining 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.