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

Sam Blakeley Hall Jr.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas district Retired 1994 · served 1985–1994 Appointed by Ronald Reagan (Republican) 29 signed orders read

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

How Judge Hall decides

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

What persuades

He required summary-judgment opponents to identify evidence supporting essential elements rather than rely on unanswered allegations.

“Plaintiffs have altogether failed to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of the state law claims as they are required to do under Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(e).”

He treated removal timing and procedural conduct as important when a federal receiver attempted to move a mature state-court case.

“The Court can only read this history as indicative of forum manipulation by the RTC.”

In trust litigation, he rejected a trustee's attempt to withhold trust-related legal advice from beneficiaries.

“the Bank has no attorney-client privilege to the exclusion of the beneficiaries”

Cautions

He warned that reconsideration is discretionary and is not an invitation to relitigate an order at will.

“the Court’s orders are not to be viewed as ‘mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.’”

He enforced procedural default in capital habeas review when a petitioner did not establish cause and prejudice.

“this Court finds that Mr. Andrews is unable to establish cause and prejudice for his default.”

Signed rulings

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

Robison v. Exxon Corp.
· 1991-04-18
Summary judgment (defendants Exxon Corporation and Exxon Company, U.S.A.) Granted

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby in all things GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.”

United States v. R.A. Corbett Transport, Inc.
· 1990-05-11
Summary judgment (defendant R.A. Corbett Transport, Inc.) Denied

“ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant R.A. Corbett Transport, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED.”

Comegys v. Glassell
· 1993-10-15
Motion to compel documents (plaintiffs) Granted

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Documents Designated as ‘Privileged and Confidential’ is hereby in all things GRANTED.”

Ellison v. Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm
· 1992-08-27
Motion to strike amended complaint (defendants) Denied

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint is hereby in all things DENIED.”

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Filippone
· 1990-09-07
Motions to remand (defendants) Granted

“ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the above entitled and numbered cause of action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona.”

United States v. Fredeman
· 1986-08-13
Motion for additional peremptory challenges (United States) Granted

“ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Motion of the United States for Additional Peremptory Challenges be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.”

Plowman v. Heckler
· 1986-01-27
Summary judgment (defendant Secretary of Health and Human Services) Denied

“Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED and that this cause be REMANDED to the Secretary for reconsideration and the making of additional findings in accordance with this opinion.”

Johnson v. Bekins Van Lines Co.
· 1992-09-16
Motion for judgment as a matter of law (defendants) Granted

“Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is hereby in all things GRANTED.”

Weaver v. Schweiker
· 1985-11-19
Summary judgment (defendant Secretary of Health and Human Services) Denied

“It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED and the determination of the Secretary be REVERSED and this cause be REMANDED to the Secretary for reconsideration in accordance with this opinion.”

Noe v. Stockwell
· 1986-03-19
Motions to stay (defendants) Denied

“For the aforementioned reasons, it is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that The Motion to Stay be DENIED.”

Johnson v. Adams
· 1986-03-19
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and the Plaintiffs’ Complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice.”

Harrison v. Texas Department of Corrections
· 1988-09-14
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion to Remand should be granted.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1780.5 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 Hall 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.