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

Harold Dale Cook

U.S. District Courts for the Eastern, Northern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma district Deceased · served 1974–2008 Appointed by Gerald Ford (Republican) 17 signed orders read

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

How Judge Cook decides

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

What persuades

At summary judgment, unsupported disagreement with the record did not create a factual dispute.

“Plaintiffs dispute this fact but offer no support for their position other than their own complaint.”

Cautions

He separated an immune tribal entity from other defendants rather than treating its absence as requiring dismissal of the entire case.

“However, the Court finds, as a matter of law, that the MBDA is not a necessary or indispensable party to these proceedings pursuant to Rule 19, and thus this action will proceed against all other defendants without the MBDA as a party.”

Signed rulings

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

Moran Pipe & Supply Co. v. Schwartz
· 1988-03-09
Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (defendants) Granted in part

“The defendants’ motion to dismiss this action for lack of in personam jurisdiction, pursuant to F.R.Cv.P. 12(b)(2), is denied as to defendants Louis Schwartz and Louis Schwartz’ Railwater Terminal Co., Inc. That same motion is granted as to defendants Norman Thompson and Ben Lomond, Inc.”

Motion to dismiss for improper venue (defendants) Denied

“The defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue, pursuant to F.R.Cv.P. 12(b)(3) is denied.”

Boyd v. United States ex rel. United States Army Corps of Engineers
· 1986-01-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Therefore, premises considered, it is the Order of the Court that the motion of the defendant United States to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is hereby granted.”

Creek Nation Indian Housing v. United States
· 1988-01-04
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, it is the Order of the Court that the motion of the defendant, the United States of America, for summary judgment in its favor is hereby GRANTED.”

Robert K. Bell Enterprises, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission
· 1980-02-15
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is overruled on all points, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment is sustained on all points.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted
International Union v. Rockwell International Corp.
· 1987-03-25
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative motion for summary judgment, is hereby DENIED.”

William B. Tanner Co. v. Central Broadcast Co.
· 1979-09-19
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be overruled.”

Diamond v. Union Bank and Trust of Bartlesville
· 1991-08-30
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“It is the Order of the Court that the motion of the defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for summary judgment is hereby granted.”

United States v. Conley
· 1987-04-24
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, it is the Order of the Court that the motion to dismiss with prejudice Counts I, II, III, VI and VII of the Indictment brought by the defendant, Mitchell Dewayne Pemberton is hereby GRANTED.”

United States v. Meador
· 1999-04-02
Motion under 2255 (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, Meador’s present § 2255 motion is hereby DENIED.”

Whisenant v. First National Bank & Trust Co.
· 2003-04-14
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the motion for summary judgment of defendant First National Bank & Trust Company of Nowata is GRANTED.”

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
· 2001-09-11
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Burlington’s motion for summary judgment as against BBC on its claim for breach of contract is GRANTED, in part.”

Summary judgment (defendant BBC) Denied

“BBC’s cross motion for judgment as to the claim of breach of contract, is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Burlington’s motion for summary judgment as against Burk on its claim for breach of contract is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant Burk) Granted

“Burk’s cross motion for judgment as to the claim of breach of contract, is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Burlington’s motion for summary judgment on its claim of negligence against BBC and Burk is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“BBC’s and Burk’s cross motion for summary judgment as to negligence is also DENIED.”

Bethesda Boys Ranch v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
· 1997-03-07
Motion to remand or abstain (plaintiffs and certain defendants) Granted

“ACCORDINGLY, IT IS THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the motions to remand or alternative to abstain filed by the plaintiffs and by defendants Reddy Oil and Gas Corporation, Ramsey Oil Corporation and Western Petroleum Company is hereby GRANTED.”

A historical record

Judge Cook 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.