Theodore Levin

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan district Retired 1970 · served 1946–1970 Appointed by Harry S. Truman (Democratic) 19 signed orders read

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

How Judge Levin decides

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

What persuades

Levin treated purposeful racial discrimination by municipal officials as constitutionally actionable even where state law otherwise gave them broad licensing discretion.

“Regardless of the authority the defendants have under the police power, the exercise of their discretion on account of race is an invidious discrimination which violates the equal protection of the laws provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In assessing antitrust venue, he focused on the continuity and practical commercial importance of a defendant’s local purchasing activity rather than formal labels.

“The answers filed by Johnson and Towers’ president to plaintiff’s interrogatories establish that his company's business transactions with its Michigan suppliers were neither isolated nor sporadic, but were continuous activities which formed a substantial part of its business.”

Procedural preferences

Levin balanced the government’s deliberative interests against a litigant’s need for evidence, using in-camera review and protective restrictions to preserve both.

“The governmental interests must be balanced against the plaintiffs’ interests in obtaining access to the memoranda.”

He required a genuine factual dispute to proceed to trial when the tax treatment of legal expenses depended on the origin and purpose of the underlying claims.

“The remaining issues, whether the legal fees were incurred in the production of income or for the management, conservation, or maintenance of income producing property, as the plaintiff claims, or whether the fees were incurred incident to the sale of the stock, as the defendant claims, present issues of fact.”

Cautions

Levin rejected a search incident to arrest that became a general hunt for incriminating evidence unrelated to weapons, escape, or the offense of arrest.

“A police officer does not, however, have a right as an incident of an arrest to conduct a general search for incriminating articles.”

He treated state sovereign immunity as extending to state agencies and departments unless a valid congressional enactment or waiver supplied a basis for suit.

“The immunity of a state extends to its agencies and departments.”

Signed rulings

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

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Willis
Claim to insurance proceeds (Margaret Willis) Denied

“It is hereby ordered that the claims of Gertrude Taylor Willis and Margaret (Margarette) Willis be, and the same are hereby dismissed.”

Claim to insurance proceeds (Gertrude Taylor Willis) Denied
Socialist Workers Party v. Hare
Motion for permanent injunction (plaintiffs) Granted

“Plaintiffs may submit a form of decree for a permanent injunction upon notice to the defendants.”

Parine v. Levine
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“For these reasons, it is hereby ordered that the motion to dismiss be and the same is hereby denied.”

Brown v. United States
Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Denied

“It is hereby ordered that both motions for summary judgment be, and the same hereby are denied.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied
Wengel, Inc. v. United States
Tax refund claim (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff is not entitled to a refund from his taxes paid for the taxable year ending September 30, 1958, and a judgment is being entered for defendant.”

Caver v. Kropp
Habeas petition (petitioner) Granted

“Accordingly, the petitioner is being held in violation of his Federal constitutional guarantees, and shall be discharged from custody unless an order is entered within fifteen days by an appropriate state court, granting him a new trial, and unless he is retried within forty days from the date thereof.”

Crusader Marine Corporation v. Chrysler Corporation
Motions to dismiss (defendant Johnson and Towers, Inc.) Denied

“The motion to dismiss is denied.”

Olsen v. Camp
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO PRODUCE”

Motion to produce (plaintiffs) Granted
Huff v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“It is hereby ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. This case will be set for an early trial on the question of damages.”

American Oil Company v. Carey
Specific performance claim (plaintiff) Granted

“On August 30, 1965, the court entered a decree for specific performance.”

Motion for rehearing or new trial (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion must be denied in accordance with Rule 59(b).”

Knox v. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agriculture Implement Workers
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“An order is being entered dismissing the complaint with prejudice but without costs.”

Kropp v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION
Motion to compel physical examination (plaintiff) Denied

“It is hereby ordered that the motion be, and the same is, denied.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No case-level docket record assigned under Levin’s name was returned for his tenure. The profile therefore makes no claim about his complete caseload mix, case duration, administrative dispositions, or motion timing.

A historical record

Judge Levin 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.