Alexander Burton Hagner

Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (now U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) district Deceased · served 1879–1903 Appointed by Rutherford B. Hayes (Republican) 25 signed orders read

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

How Judge Hagner decides

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

What persuades

He enforced a statutory remedy even for a small claim when the claimant's legal right was clear.

“he must have his rights whether his claim is small or large.”

He evaluated patent infringement on the evidentiary record of the particular case rather than following another court whose facts differed.

“the decision must depend upon the evidence in the particular case, and it is only when the facts of the cases are alike, that one ought to control the other.”

Cautions

He declined to depart from settled legal principles solely to relieve the perceived hardship of an individual case.

“To these it is our duty to adhere, and we have no right to depart from them to meet what we may think is the abstract justice of any particular case.”

He would not apply laches without a showing that delay injured others, caused public or private inconvenience, or induced reliance.

“Nothing appears, thus far, in these proceedings to show that the petitioners by culpable silence have inflicted injury upon others, or occasioned public or private inconvenience; or that others, thus lulled into hurtful security, have acquired rights which will now be impaired by sustaining tardy objections to these assessments.”

Signed rulings

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

Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Brightwell
· 1879-05-26
Patent infringement claim (complainants) Denied

“the use of celluloid is not an infringement”

Barker Bros. v. Schooner E. M. Wright
· 1881-01-31
Admiralty libel (libellants) Granted

“we are of opinion that the libel below should have been sustained”

Murray v. Ager
· 1881-03-02
Bill in equity (judgment creditor) Granted

“We are of opinion that the decree below should be reversed”

Strong v. Barbour
· 1881-05-31
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Judgment reversed and case remanded for trial.”

Vinson v. Beveridge
· 1881-07-01
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Granted

“We therefore reverse the rulings excepted to, and remand the case for a new trial.”

Forsyth v. Hibernia Building Ass'n
· 1881-07-06
Appeal (complainants-appellants) Granted

“the decree below is reversed, and the case remanded for that purpose.”

Connell v. Vanderwerken
· 1881-11-01
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“we are of the opinion that it should be affirmed.”

Strong v. District of Columbia
· 1881-11-21
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Granted

“Judgment reversed and cause remanded for new trial.”

Kendall v. Grice
· 1881-11-21
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“We think the rulings held were correct, and they are affirmed.”

United States v. Bicksler
· 1881-12-30
Criminal appeal (defendant-appellant) Granted

“The judgment below is therefore reversed.”

Patch v. White
· 1882-04-17
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“The rulings below are affirmed.”

Strong v. Grant
· 1883-02-12
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“we think the rulings below should-be affirmed.”

A historical record

Judge Hagner 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.