John Wesley Warrington

How Judge Warrington rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Position
circuit
Status
Deceased
Served
1909–1921
Appointed by
William Howard Taft (Republican)
Commissioned
1909-03-16
Education
Cincinnati Law School, LL.B., 1869
Signed orders read
25

How Judge Warrington decides

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

What persuades

Preserves jury consideration when the record supports a reasonable inference of concurrent negligence.

“there was evidence from which concurring negligence oil the part of defendants might reasonably have been inferred, and this is the test of their liability.”

Gives weight to a trial judge's detailed examination while still independently reviewing the record.

“Judge Sater’s decree in the court below was the result of minute examination and a considered opinion.”

Procedural preferences

Confines a bankruptcy petition for revision to questions of law.

“A petition for revision opens only questions'.of law.”

Uses mandamus only when Congress has not supplied an exclusive statutory review path.

“such statutory provisions are, in tlieir nature, exclusive”

Cautions

Applies claim preclusion only to issues the earlier judgment actually resolved.

“the first judgment operated as an estoppel in this cause.”

Does not treat property as part of a bankruptcy estate without statutory support.

“There is nothing in the Bankruptcy Act to warrant the claim that the property in issue passed to the bankrupts.”

Signed rulings

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

Millie Iron Mining Co. v. McKinney
· 1909-07-26
Appeal (mining company plaintiff in error) Granted

“The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial awarded; and it is so ordered.”

In re Rohrer
· 1910-03-08
Petition for review (bankruptcy petitioner) Granted

“The order of injunction is reversed, and the proceeding in that behalf dismissed, with costs.”

Skud v. Tillinghast
· 1912-04-02
Appeal (injured plaintiff appellant) Granted

“The judgment below must be reversed, and a new trial awarded, with costs.”

A. J. Phillips Co. v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co.
· 1912-03-13
Appeal (shipper plaintiff in error) Denied

“The judgment below must be affirmed, with costs.”

Bak Kun v. United States
· 1912-03-05
Appeal (appellants) Denied

“The judgment in each case must be affirmed.”

In re Holden
· 1913-03-04
Appeal (bankruptcy trustee petitioner) Denied

“the order of the court below dismissing the petition of the trustee must be affirmed, with costs.”

Frick v. Lee Tung Jung
· 1913-05-06
Appeal (appellants) Granted

“The judgments are accordingly reversed, and the causes remanded.”

United States ex rel. Butterworth & Lowe v. Sessions
· 1913-05-16
Mandamus petition (relators) Denied

“the writ must be denied, with costs.”

Graham v. Quinlan
· 1913-06-30
Appeal (county officials appellants) Granted in part

“Subject to such modifications, the judgments below are affirmed, with costs.”

Young v. Allen
· 1913-06-30
Appeal (claimant appellant) Denied

“The decree below must be affirmed, with costs.”

Safety-Armorite Conduit Co. v. Mark
· 1913-06-05
Appeal (patent-holder appellant) Denied

“The decree is therefore affirmed, with costs.”

Chattanooga & Tennessee River Power Co. v. United States
· 1913-12-02
Appeal (power company plaintiff in error) Denied

“the judgment below must be affirmed.”

A historical record

Judge Warrington 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.