Francis Marion Wright

How Judge Wright rules, drawn from 5 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1905–1917
Appointed by
Theodore Roosevelt (Republican)
Commissioned
1905-03-17
Education
Cincinnati Law School (now University of Cincinnati College of Law), LL.B., 1867
Signed orders read
5

How Judge Wright decides

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

What persuades

Wright treated an express statutory restriction on removal as controlling even though diversity jurisdiction otherwise would have supported federal jurisdiction.

“The language of the proviso is that no case arising under the act in question shall be removed, and such reference to ‘no case,’ being contained in the same section creating the right, is all-embracing”

When reviewing a master's recommendation, Wright independently assessed the entire record and sustained objections when his valuation analysis led to a different result.

“The exceptions of the .complainant to the findings and conclusions of the master will be sustained”

Cautions

A statutory-penalty claim failed on the contested count when the stipulated record did not establish the factual connection required by the governing statute.

“The statement of facts falls far short of proving the essential or controlling fact — of a connection between the two cars.”

Signed rulings

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

United States v. Liquor Dealers' Supply Co.
· 1907-09-12
Motion for new trial and arrest of judgment (defendant) Denied

“after overruling motion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, the court imposed- a fine of §500 upon each count.”

United States v. Illinois Central Railroad
No. 754 · 1908-12-02

On a stipulated record under the Safety Appliance Act, Wright found for the railroad on the contested sixth count because the government had not shown that the defective intrastate car was used in connection with the interstate car. The decision followed a bench trial rather than a motion and is excluded from the motion counts.

United States ex rel. Kelley v. Peters
· 1909-01-19
Habeas petition (relator) Granted

“Entertaining these views, an order will be' entered discharging the relator from arrest or imprisonment by authority of the capias described in the petition, and restraining the issuance or service of any capias upon the judgment described in the petition herein.”

East St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co. v. City of Belleville
No. 382 · 1912-01-31
Objections to masters report (complainant) Granted

“The exceptions of the .complainant to the findings and conclusions of the master will be sustained, and a general finding of the equities of the cause may be entered for the complainant, and a decree may be prepared for the complainant as prayed in the bill of complaint.”

Lee v. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railway Co.
· 1912-02-13
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“it follows that the motion to remand to the state court should he allowed; and it is so ordered accordingly.”

A historical record

Judge Wright 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.