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

Carroll O. Switzer

United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa district Retired 1950 · served 1949–1950 Appointed by Harry S. Truman (Democratic) 20 signed orders read

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

How Judge Switzer decides

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

What persuades

Switzer treated the limits Congress placed on sovereign immunity as controlling even where equitable considerations favored the claimant.

“In waiving its sovereign immunity and consenting to be sued, the United States fixed and bounded the area of its liability.”

He transferred litigation when the accident site, plaintiff, and nearly all witnesses were concentrated in another federal district.

“a transfer of this cause to the First Division of the Minnesota District would best serve the interests of justice, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses”

Procedural preferences

In patent cases, Switzer required the pleader to identify the particular patent claims alleged to have been infringed.

“the general practice in patent infringement suits has been to require the plaintiff to state which claims of a patent he alleges to have been infringed.”

He protected trial-preparation materials absent a particularly strong and specific showing of good cause.

“the discovery rules do not go so far as to permit an encroachment by one party upon the other’s files made up in contemplation of and in preparation for the trial of his cause, without a particularly strong showing of good cause”

Cautions

A separable controversy was not enough for removal unless the pleading stated a separate and independent claim within federal jurisdiction.

“No longer will removal by a nonresident co-defendant be permitted upon a petition which states a separable controversy, unless that petition pleads a separate and independent claim or cause of action within the jurisdiction of this court.”

Signed rulings

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

Jones v. United States
· 1949-12-07
Motions to dismiss (United States) Granted

“The motion of the Government to dismiss therefore should be, and the same is, hereby sustained and plaintiff’s petition is ordered dismissed.”

Coyne & Delany Co. v. G. W. Onthank Co.
· 1950-08-16
Motion for more definite statement (defendants) Granted

“It Is Ordered that 'the Motion of the defendants for More Definite and Certain Statement be and the same is hereby sustained.”

Motion regarding costs (defendants) Denied

“It is further Ordered that the Motion Regarding Costs of the defendants be and is hereby overruled.”

Old King Coal Co. v. United States
· 1949-12-05
Motions to dismiss (United States) Granted

“The motion of the Government therefore, should be, and it is hereby, ordered sustained, and the complaint of the plaintiff is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.”

In re Zenith Air Conditioning Corp.
· 1950-10-26
Application to compel turnover (Des Moines Bank & Trust Company) Granted

“The Court finds that said application should be granted.”

Rodewald v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
· 1950-06-22
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“It is Ordered that the motion of the plaintiff to remand this case to the District Court of Iowa in and for Clinton County be, and the same is, hereby sustained, and the cause be so remanded.”

Waider v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R.
· 1950-07-10
Objections to requests for admission (defendant) Granted

“It is hereby ordered that said objections to the above numbered requests for admissions be and they are hereby sustained, and said requests for admissions by the plaintiff and each of them as so numbered be and they are hereby quashed”

Waider v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
· 1950-05-08
Motion to strike interrogatories (defendant) Granted

“It is ordered that the motion of the defendant should be, and it is hereby, sustained, and the interrogatories of the plaintiff to the persons enumerated on page 1 of this ruling, be and they are hereby suppressed and quashed.”

Thor Corp. v. Automatic Washer Co.
· 1950-06-30
Motions to strike (defendant) Granted in part

“It is Ordered that the motion of the defendant to strike all of paragraphs numbered 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 32 contained in plaintiff’s bill be, and the same is, hereby overruled; that the motion of the defendant to strike either all or a portion of paragraphs 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 29, and 30 be, and the same is, hereby sustained”

Otto v. Hirl
· 1950-02-24
Motions to transfer (plaintiff) Granted

“It is ordered that this case of Miles Otto, Plaintiff, v. Neil Hirl and Michael Hirl, Defendants, Civil Action herein No. 1-5, be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, First Division”

Keown v. United States
· 1950-09-13
Servicemembers insurance claim (plaintiff) Denied

“It is ordered that the complaint of the plaintiff be, and the same is, hereby dismissed on its merits.”

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Blue Diamond Products Co.
· 1950-10-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“It is ordered that the said motion of the defendant be, and the same, is hereby overruled.”

Dulansky v. Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Co.
· 1950-02-21
Motion to produce documents (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“It is ordered that said motion is sustained except as to paragraph No. 2 thereof which is overruled.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No electronic case-level docket exists for Switzer's tenure. The profile therefore makes no claim about complete caseload mix, duration, administrative dispositions, or motion timing.

A historical record

Judge Switzer 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.