William Kernahan Thomas
Judge Thomas no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Subject to plaintiff’s filing a second amended complaint as described above, PMM’s motion to dismiss her complaint as to it is overruled.”
“Arrangement of this sequence of discovery, authorized under Rule 26(d) upon motion, is granted as relief under plaintiffs’ Rule 37 motion.”
“For the foregoing reasons good cause for the issuance of a protective order has not been shown by defendants.”
“Therefore, plaintiffs’ motion to stay Sanford Kahn’s deposition is granted, conditioned upon his appearance at a deposition in Cleveland, Ohio, subsequent to defendants’ compliance with the within order, but not before March 20, 1973.”
“Defendants’ attempted showing amounts to no more than general and conclusory allegations of need; therefore, the motion for production of documents must be overruled.”
“Defendant Penton’s motion to dismiss the second count, as amended, is granted without prejudice to the plaintiff to assert a pendent state claim, consistent with this opinion and applicable state law.”
“By plaintiffs’ submission on January 28, 1971 of answers to both sets (save one objection that is at the center of the present controversy), defendant’s earlier motion to compel filed January 20, 1971, has become moot.”
“Defendant Schumag’s motion is granted and plaintiffs are directed to answer more fully interrogatories 1, 2, and 3 in the following manner:”
“The complaint is therefore ordered dismissed.”
“production will be ordered at this time of the medical reports, later specified, as to which subject matter, the plaintiff contemplates a waiver of the privilege.”
“Hence the motion will be denied to the extent that defendant’s counsel attempts to apply his request to office medical records.”
“Cosco’s motion to correct United States Des.Patent No. 203,435 is granted.”
“Therefore, the motion of the City of University Heights to dismiss the city as a party defendant is granted.”
“Judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.”
On remand, Thomas reaffirmed the prior judgment for the defendant, stating: “Judgment is granted in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.”
“The defendants’ motion for summary judgment is therefore denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The twenty enumerated assigned cases form an archival slice rather than a complete caseload. Contract, civil-rights, product-liability, labor, securities, and banking matters were represented.
A historical record
Judge Thomas 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.