Paul Neeley Brown
Judge Brown no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Brown decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He required concrete record evidence at summary judgment and treated unsupported assertions as insufficient to create a triable dispute.
“Since no summary judgment evidence was submitted to support this claim, it also cannot survive summary judgment.”
He treated a patent license's text as controlling when the parties could have drafted express limits on foundry manufacturing.
“Intel could have prevented this result by placing limitations in the cross license agreement.”
He recognized a factual dispute over reasonable accommodation when an employee offered evidence of a workable reassignment arrangement.
“Emrick has succeeded in raising a genuine issue of material fact as to LOF’s efforts at reasonably accommodating him.”
Cautions
He enforced administrative-exhaustion requirements in claims against the United States.
“An action which is instituted prior to the exhaustion of administrative remedies under the FTCA must be dismissed.”
He treated employee handbooks as noncontractual absent an express agreement limiting at-will employment.
“employment manuals unilaterally issued by an employer generally do not limit the employment at-will rule.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Government’s motion for summary judgment on its primary claim should be granted.”
“Metropolitan's motion for summary judgment should be granted”
“Bills' motion for summary judgment should be denied.”
“ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“IBM’s Motion for Summary Judgment should, therefore, be granted and Intel’s Supplemented Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.”
“ORDERED that the FDIC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and plaintiff’s claims against defendant First National Bank and the FDIC as Receiver for the Bank are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted”
“its Motion for Show Cause Hearing should be denied.”
“all the relief requested by the Hart Defendants in their December 23, 1998 motion should be denied.”
“Defendant’s motion should be granted and Plaintiffs motion should be denied.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied”
“Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be granted.”
“Defendant’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgement should be granted in its entirety”
“Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied in its entirety.”
“Intel’s Motion for Summary Judgment should, therefore, be denied”
“ST’s Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.”
“The Motion for Reconsideration should, therefore, be denied.”
“the Court has concluded that Collin County’s Motion For Summary Judgment should be granted”
“For the aforementioned reasons, Defendant’s motions for partial summary judgment should be denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1284.5 days (N = 20).
The bounded early-tenure enumeration contains twenty terminated cases. It is a narrow archival slice, not a career-wide caseload measure.
A historical record
Judge Brown 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.