Frank H. Rudkin

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit circuit Retired 1931 · served 1923–1931 Appointed by Warren G. Harding (Republican) 25 signed orders read

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

How Judge Rudkin decides

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

What persuades

Rudkin required novelty in the means used to imitate a known article, not merely in the resulting appearance.

“a mere imitation of a well-known article is not patentable unless there is novelty in the means by which- the imitation is carried out”

In fraud cases, he treated facts that should trigger reasonable inquiry as legal knowledge of what the inquiry would reveal.

“means of knowledge is knowledge itself”

Procedural preferences

Rudkin refused to reconstruct trial facts from a lower-court opinion when the appellate record contained no evidence.

“on appeal recourse cannot be had to an opinion filed by the court below to ascertain the facts, where there is no evidence in the record”

On stipulated special findings, he limited review to whether the findings supported the judgment rather than reweighing the testimony.

“this court cannot consider the sufficiency of the testimony to support the special findings, but only the sufficiency of the special findings to support the judgment.”

Cautions

Rudkin reversed when cross-examination introduced an arrest accusation wholly outside the scope of direct examination.

“The question propounded on the cross-examination was therefore wholly foreign to anything found in the direct examination.”

Signed rulings

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

In re White
· 1926-10-25
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The order is affirmed.”

San Rafael Freight & Transfer Co. v. Columbia Steel Corp.
· 1929-07-01
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“The decree of the court below must therefore be modified by disallowing the item of $80, with interest as computed in the-decree, and, as thus modified, the decree is affirmed, without costs to either party.”

Dong Tong Sing v. Nagle
· 1930-06-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The order is affirmed.”

Putman v. Beaver State Shingle Co.
· 1930-12-22
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The decree is therefore affirmed.”

Mitrovich v. United States
· 1926-10-25
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“For errors in the admission of testimony, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.”

Clark v. Milens
· 1929-05-27
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The order of the court below is affirmed.”

Waterloo Register Co. v. Atherton
· 1930-02-17
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Decree affirmed.”

Carlson v. United States
· 1928-10-15
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment is affirmed.”

United States v. White
· 1931-03-30
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“The judgment is therefore reversed and the case is remanded, with instructions to take further testimony as to the date of receipt "of due proof of total permanent disability, and to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff for installments accruing not exceeding six months prior to that date.”

Schiller v. United States
· 1929-11-12
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment is affirmed.”

Casella v. Nagle
· 1928-11-12
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The order of the court below is therefore affirmed.”

Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Fredericksen
· 1929-12-17
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment is affirmed.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Not applicable to this circuit-court record.

A historical record

Judge Rudkin 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.