Joseph McKenna

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

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

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Position
circuit
Status
Retired 1897
Served
1892–1897
Appointed by
Benjamin Harrison (Republican)
Commissioned
1892-03-17
Education
St. Augustine's College (1865); Read law (1865)
Signed orders read
25

How Judge McKenna decides

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

What persuades

In patent cases, McKenna treated a known mechanical substitute as an equivalent when it performed the same role in the claimed combination.

“If it is either, it is an equivalent.”

When statutory language was unambiguous, he applied it despite arguments based on the law's broader purpose or timing.

“where the language is plain, the courts must so interpret it.”

Procedural preferences

McKenna expected an appellant seeking differentiated relief to provide a record that identified which parties fell within each legally significant group.

“It was appellant’s duty to distinguish the classes, and to identify the defendants composing each.”

He permitted a trial judge to comment on competing evidence so long as the jury retained responsibility for the factual decision.

“However, my judgment is not to govern; the matter is for your determination, not mine.”

Cautions

McKenna treated equitable delay as an independent ground for rejecting relief even when the limitations analysis did not itself resolve the claim.

“Besides, the plaintiff’s laches is wholly independent of the statute of limitations.”

Signed rulings

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

Anderson v. Martial
· 1893-07-17
Appeal (appellants) Denied

“The decree of the district court is affirmed.”

Johnson Co. v. Pacific Rolling Mills Co.
· 1892-07-18
Appeal (appellant (patentee)) Denied

“Judgment is therefore affirmed.”

Henzel v. California Electrical Works
· 1892-07-18
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Judgment is affirmed.”

Consolidated Piedmont Cable Co. v. Pacific Cable Ry. Co.
· 1893-07-24
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.”

Consolidated Piedmont Cable Co. v. Pacific Cable Ry. Co.
· 1892-10-24
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Judgment is affirmed.”

Lakin v. Roberts
· 1893-01-30
Appeal (plaintiff in error) Denied

“Judgment is therefore affirmed.”

United States v. Mock Chew
· 1893-01-30
Appeal (appellant (United States)) Granted

“The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.”

Carter v. Ruddy
· 1893-05-08
Appeal (plaintiff in error) Denied

“Judgment is therefore affirmed.”

De Martin v. Phelan
· 1892-07-18
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff)) Denied

“Judgment is affirmed.”

Consolidated Piedmont Cable Co. v. Pacific Cable Ry. Co.
· 1892-10-24
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Judgment is affirmed.”

Puget Mill Co. v. Brown
· 1893-11-14
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Decree and judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.”

Ilwaco Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Oregon Short Line & U. N. Ry. Co.
· 1893-07-17
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Not applicable to this circuit-court record.

A historical record

Judge McKenna 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.