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

David Sutherland Nelson

United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts district Retired 1991 · served 1979–1991 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 21 signed orders read

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

How Judge Nelson decides

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

What persuades

Nelson distinguished possible product notice from knowledge of a legally actionable defect and declined to start limitations based on ambiguous medical information.

“the plaintiff should not reasonably be expected to have learned that the prosthetic knee might be defective until after November 15, 1979”

Nelson required plaintiffs to connect admissible evidence to the alleged improper motive rather than rely on unsupported inference.

“there is no evidence that the two cited actions were in any way connected”

Procedural preferences

Nelson chose a less expensive written deposition before authorizing a burdensome overseas oral examination.

“Before bringing substantial resources of the litigants and the courts of two countries to bear on oral depositions in Australia, therefore, the Court rules that DBMS should first attempt to obtain the information it seeks from Butler by taking Butler’s deposition on written questions”

Nelson allowed amendment where the new negligence theory required no additional facts and did not materially alter trial strategy.

“The additional claim does not require the establishment of additional facts; rather, it requires an analysis of the degree of culpability of the defendant’s actions based on the facts as initially asserted.”

Cautions

Nelson sanctioned counsel for pressing factual allegations that were easily verifiable without disclosing any reasonable investigation.

“The conduct of defendants’ attorney with respect to this matter manifests an appalling degree of irresponsibility.”

Nelson treated discovery as a tool to clarify pleaded issues, not a substitute for alleging specific facts supporting a civil-rights claim.

“While discovery may help to clarify the issues, a plaintiff must plead specific facts in support of a claim of a civil rights violation.”

Signed rulings

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

Simonds Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.
Summary judgment (General Motors) Granted

“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED.”

Selfridge v. Gynecol, Inc.
Motion to disqualify judge (defendants) Denied

“Defendants’ motion for recusal is DENIED.”

Sanctions against counsel (court) Granted

“Defense counsel shall pay to plaintiffs the amount of $1,000.”

Williams v. Western Electric Corp., Inc.
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, I rule that defendant’s motion to dismiss should be ALLOWED. Complaint DISMISSED.”

Voda v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The Complaint in this action is hereby DISMISSED.”

Cashman v. Shalala
Motion to reverse secretary (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, Plaintiffs request for an order reversing the Secretary’s decision is DENIED.”

Smith v. United States
Ftca claim (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, judgment will enter against the United States for $138,185.00.”

Vigeant v. Zimmer, Inc.
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, except insofar as the strict liability claim is dismissed.”

Morrell v. Forbes, Inc.
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court hereby DENIES the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“ALLOWS the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment insofar as it applies to the plaintiff's unlawful appropriation and intentional infliction of emotional distress *1308 claims, and DENIES the remainder of the defendant’s motion.”

Richard v. Callahan
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“For the reasons outlined above, I find that federal jurisdiction does not lie and hereby DISMISS the petition.”

DBMS Consultants Ltd. v. Computer Associates International, Inc.
Application for letter rogatory (plaintiff) Granted in part

“DBMS’s application for the issuance of a letter rogatory is allowed to the extent that the court will issue a letter rogatory requesting the assistance of the Supreme Court of the State of New South Wales, Australia in conducting the deposition of Paul Butler on written questions”

Hart v. Bourque
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted

“are directed to pay to the plaintiff the amount of $58,372.03, plus interest.”

Boyle v. Boston Foundation, Inc.
Summary judgment (Boston Foundation) Granted

“partial summary judgment is GRANTED to defendant Boston Foundation on Count II to the extent that the possible recovery is limited to $20,000 exclusive of interests and costs.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant Jones) Denied

“Defendant Jones’ motion to dismiss Count III is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant Jones) Granted

“Count IV is treated by this court as a motion for summary judgment and summary judgment is GRANTED to defendant Jones on that claim.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 3348.5 days (N = 20).

The twenty located historical dockets were all terminated and spanned product liability, contract, insurance, patent, labor, civil-rights, securities, maritime, fraud, and statutory matters. This is a partial historical slice rather than a complete caseload.

A historical record

Judge Nelson 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.