Patrick Anthony Conmy
How Judge Conmy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Conmy treated formal discovery as the reliable mechanism when voluntary medical interviews could not be compelled.
“Even if this court ordered plaintiffs to execute the appropriate authorizations, nothing short of a subpoena could compel the physicians themselves to cooperate with defendant, and then not ex parte.”
He declined to require tribal exhaustion when it would not serve self-government or self-determination in the dispute before him.
“Requiring the exhaustion of tribal remedies would not advance tribal self-government and tribal self-determination.”
Procedural preferences
Conmy required a summary-judgment movant to establish entitlement with clarity and leave no genuine controversy.
“Summary judgment should not be granted unless the moving party has established the right to a judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy.”
He refused to use jurisdictional sympathy as a substitute for statutory authority.
“In all events, this court lacks jurisdiction, and cannot reach the ‘merits’ of the dispute.”
Cautions
Conmy avoided a rigid test when statutory language and practical circumstances required a fact-sensitive tax analysis.
“No ‘bright line’ test is adopted.”
He declined to recognize a constitutional privacy right without an express mandate or clear controlling authority.
“In the absence of an express constitutional mandate, or clear language of the Supreme Court, this court declines to find such a right in this case.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the order of the Bankruptcy Court be REVERSED and the Appellees be allowed to amend their petition in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 1009.”
“Based on the foregoing, the order of the bankruptcy court entered on December 29, 1987, is hereby AFFIRMED.”
“THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL AUTHORIZATION TO INTERVIEW TREATING PHYSICIANS IS DENIED.”
“1. The motion to consolidate is DENIED. (doc. # 19)”
“2. The motion to dismiss is partially GRANTED as to the tribe, the tax commission, and the business council and DENIED as to the individual defendants. (doc. # 5, 19)”
“3. The motions for extension of time and for leave to file a reply brief are DENIED as moot. (docs. # 13, 14, 15)”
“Accordingly, the order of the Bankruptcy Court is REVERSED.”
“Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that judgment be entered for the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,179.18 with the appropriate rate of interest thereon.”
“THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR IN-JUNCTIVE RELIEF IS DENIED.”
“THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS DENIED, AND THAT THE CASE IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.”
“1) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED;”
“2) DEFENDANT SUSAN MERCIER’S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED; AND,”
“3) DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED.”
“1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to its claims against defendant, CCC, is hereby DENIED. (Docket #17, 22).”
“2. Defendant, CCC’s, motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED. (Docket # 13).”
“1. THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED.”
“2. THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. THIS COURT FINDS THAT THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE STATE ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT AS A MEANS OF PREVENTING THE UNLAWFUL DIVERSION OF INTOXICANTS FROM THE FEDERAL ENCLAVES WITHIN THE STATE INTO THE STATE'S STREAM OF COMMERCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO ENTER JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE IN THIS CASE.”
“1. THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS DENIED.”
“2. THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO STRIKE THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED.”
“3. THAT THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The eighteen reviewed decisions cover varied litigation but do not establish the distribution of Conmy’s full caseload.
Put Judge Conmy's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Conmy actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Conmy's own signed orders and cites them.