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

Patrick F. Kelly

United States District Court for the District of Kansas district Retired 1996 · served 1980–1996 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 18 signed orders read

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

How Judge Kelly decides

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

What persuades

Kelly treated contemporaneous incident reports as discoverable facts rather than privileged peer-review conclusions.

“The incident reports themselves are merely statements of fact. As such, they serve an important role in the discovery process.”

He focused choice-of-law analysis on where the harmful exposure occurred rather than where a latent disease was later discovered.

“The salient consideration here is that exposure to all of the defendants’ products occurred in Texas.”

Procedural preferences

He construed statutory exclusions from employee protection narrowly.

“Congress intended the exclusions from employee status to be narrowly construed.”

He ended further discovery when it would not affect the legal conclusion already supported by the record.

“The court finds that additional discovery is neither required nor beneficial.”

Cautions

He was willing to relax a service deadline where a pro se litigant may have relied on court personnel and the defendant showed no prejudice.

“the equitable considerations in a case such as this outweigh a strict application of the Federal Rules.”

He rejected efforts to convert a state-law malpractice dispute into a federal emergency-treatment claim.

“Claims regarding diagnosis and treatment lie in the area of medical malpractice, an area traditionally regulated by state law.”

Signed rulings

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

Berstein v. Benson
747 F. Supp. 1414 · 1989-07-07
Motion to alter or amend judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”

Glickman, Inc. v. Home Insurance
887 F. Supp. 259 · 1995-05-12
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“defendant Home Insurance Company’s motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 47) is hereby granted.”

Motions to compel (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff Glickman’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 45) is hereby denied.”

Porter v. Snyder
115 F.R.D. 77 · 1987-03-26
Motion for protective order (defendant) Denied

“defendant’s motion for a protective order is denied.”

State of Kan. v. Call
760 F. Supp. 190 · 1991-03-19
Motion to quash subpoena (government) Granted

“the government’s motion to quash subpoena and to vacate order to show cause (Dkt. No. 13) is hereby granted.”

Carter v. Sedgwick County
685 F. Supp. 797 · 1988-02-16
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the individual liability of defendants Cameron, Gragg, Scott, Hentzen and Witsman is granted; and defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Title VII claim is denied.”

United States v. Charles
606 F. Supp. 377 · 1985-04-03
Motion to quash indictment (defendant) Denied

“defendant James Charles’ motion to quash the indictment against him be denied.”

United States v. Karlin
762 F. Supp. 911 · 1991-04-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“the defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied.”

Sutton v. Subaru of America, Inc.
771 F. Supp. 321 · 1991-08-01
Summary judgment (Eidson, Lewis) Denied

“the motion for summary judgment of Eidson, Lewis (Dkt. No. 88) is hereby denied”

Summary judgment (Sandra Sutton) Granted

“the motion for partial summary judgment of Sandra Sutton (Dkt. No. 93) is hereby granted.”

Star Manufacturing Co. v. Mancuso
680 F. Supp. 1496 · 1988-03-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted”

Motion for approval of ratification (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff's motion for approval of ratification is denied.”

Block v. Boeing Military Airplane Co.
671 F. Supp. 19 · 1987-05-22
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.”

Harding v. Proko Industries, Inc.
765 F. Supp. 1053 · 1991-05-02
Motion for determination of law (plaintiffs) Granted

“the plaintiffs motion for determination of law (Dkt. No. 92) is hereby granted.”

Graham v. Wyeth Laboratories
118 F.R.D. 511 · 1988-02-02
Motion for stay pending appeal (defendant) Denied

“counsel for Wyeth moved the court for a stay pending its appeal from my order overruling their trial motions. This motion is also overruled.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1741.5 days (N = 20).

The 20 located assigned cases filed from 1982 through 1988 were all terminated and are not a career-wide caseload measure.

A historical record

Judge Kelly 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.