William Alexander Cant

United States District Court for the District of Minnesota district Deceased · served 1924–1933 Appointed by Warren G. Harding (Republican) 20 signed orders read

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

How Judge Cant decides

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

Cautions

In assessing directors' liability, Cant emphasized evidence-based amounts and cautioned against expanding uncertain damages.

“there should be no strained construction or undue zeal to enlarge the amount for which any particular defendant should be held, when such amount is a matter of doubt.”

Signed rulings

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

Anneke v. Willcuts
· 1932-09-30

Cant adhered to findings already entered in the estate-tax dispute, but the surviving opinion did not restate a standalone judgment or motion disposition.

Chytracek v. United States
· 1932-04-21
Application for inspection (plaintiff veteran) Granted in part

“The application as made in this proceeding is somewhat broader than the law will permit, and the order will be properly limited in its terms.”

Ex parte Dove
· 1925-08-14
Petition for habeas corpus (petitioner) Denied

“The petitioner therefore should be held subject to the provisions of the state laws, and the writ should be discharged.”

Bunn v. Willcuts
· 1928-11-17
Demurrer (defendant collector) Denied

“Tbe complaint states a cause of action, and tbe demurrer should be overruled.”

Bisek v. Bellanger
· 1925-02-15
Equitable land title claim (plaintiff purchaser) Granted

“A decree should be entered in favor of plaintiff in accordance with this opinion.”

Leverentz v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
· 1925-08-06
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“No cause of action is stated against Oat-man, and the motion to remand should be denied.”

Brown Sheet Iron & Steel Co. v. Willcuts
· 1929-07-23
Tax refund claim (plaintiff manufacturer) Denied

“The conclusion is that the particular tanks upon which the tax here in question was levied were parts or accessories for use in connection with automobile trucks,- and that the tax was and is valid.”

United States v. Malt
· 1927-11-26
Motion to dismiss libel (property claimant and petitioner) Granted

“The motion to dismiss the libel and for related relief, therefore, should be granted.”

Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Willcuts
· 1932-08-15

Cant concluded that a stock-transfer tax was unwarranted, but the surviving opinion did not state a standalone judgment or expressly grant the refund claim.

Nilson v. Ford Motor Co.
· 1929-08-05
Patent infringement claim (plaintiffs) Denied

“A decree should be entered for the defendant.”

Rousso v. Boyle
· 1924-09-03
Patent infringement claim (plaintiff patent holder) Granted

“There should bé a decree for the plaintiff.”

Bowe-Burke Mining Co. v. Willcuts
· 1927-07-18
Tax refund claim (plaintiff companies) Denied

“The' judgment will therefore be for the defendant.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No representative case-level electronic docket sample is available for Cant's 1923–1933 tenure; the reviewed published decisions do not establish his complete caseload mix.

A historical record

Judge Cant 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.