Randle Jasper Smith

How Judge Smith rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1956–1962
Appointed by
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
Commissioned
1956-07-03
Education
University of Missouri, A.B. (1931)
Signed orders read
20

How Judge Smith decides

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

What persuades

In Marks, Smith ordered production of a technical fire-investigation report because the combination of complexity, contemporaneous testing, and elapsed time made the underlying facts unavailable through ordinary witness questioning.

“the complexity of the subject, the immediacy of the tests after the fire, the technical nature of the report, and the length of time elapsed since the investigation all combine to make it difficult, if not impossible, for plaintiff to obtain the facts involved without recourse to the report.”

Procedural preferences

In Chapman, Smith stressed that local briefing rules require counsel to give the court adequate legal analysis when a motion raises complex issues.

“The statements or written suggestions are gravely deficient considering the complexities of the issues raised by the motion.”

Signed rulings

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

United States v. National Dairy Products Corp.
· 1961-06-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant Wise) Granted

“The motion of defendant Wise to dismiss Counts 11 and 12 as to him is sustained.”

Motion for severance (defendant Wise) Denied

“the alternative motion of defendant Wise for severance and separate trial of Counts 11 and 12 is overruled.”

Motion to join additional motions (defendant Wise) Denied

“the alternative motion of defendant Wise joining in certain additional motions of defendant National is overruled.”

Motion to compel particulars (National Dairy Products Corporation) Granted in part

“As it relates to the particulars set forth in Part II, 1(b) and 3(d), the motion is overruled. As it relates to Part II, 2 and 3(a), it is my view that the Government has not complied with the order of March 17, 1961, requiring particulars, and the motion is therefore sustained”

Motion for pretrial order (National Dairy Products Corporation) Denied

“This motion is premature and is overruled.”

Motion for subpoenas duces tecum (National Dairy Products Corporation) Granted

“These motions are sustained and the Clerk is directed at such time as is requested by defendant to issue the subpoenas duces tecum”

Motion for pretrial production (National Dairy Products Corporation) Denied

“This motion is overruled. Undoubtedly this goes beyond the scope of permissible discovery in criminal cases.”

Martin v. Settle
· 1961-03-21
Petition for habeas corpus (petitioner) Granted

“it is ordered that petitioner be returned to his committing court for such further proceedings as may be deemed proper by that Court”

Mitchell v. Kickapoo Prairie Broadcasting Company
· 1960-03-28
Defense judgment after bench trial (defendants) Granted

“judgment will be entered for the defendants in Civil Action No. 1594.”

Request for injunction after bench trial (Secretary of Labor) Denied

“In Civil Action No. 1597 the request for injunction is denied and the action is dismissed.”

Hunter v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
· 1958-12-03
Defense judgment after bench trial (defendant) Granted

“It is directed that judgment be entered for defendant, with costs.”

Marks v. Gas Service Company
· 1958-12-10
Motion for production of document (plaintiff) Granted

“the motion to produce the document in question, denominated number-1 in plaintiff’s motion, is sustained.”

Kellett v. United States
· 1958-06-06
Petition for habeas corpus (petitioner) Denied

“The petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is without merit and is denied.”

Comstock v. Morgan
· 1958-09-25
Motions to remand (cross-claimant Miller) Granted

“the case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, from whence it was removed.”

United States v. Grado
· 1957-09-19
Motion for pretrial witness statement (defendant) Denied

“defendant’s motion requesting a copy of the statement made by Lupe G. Lopez to any agent of the Government is overruled, as being premature.”

Motion for bill of particulars (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars is denied.”

Gordon v. United States
· 1958-06-30
Estate tax refund claim after bench trial (plaintiffs) Granted

“In Count I, judgment is to be entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, as prayed in the complaint.”

Estate tax refund claim after bench trial (plaintiffs) Denied

“In Count II, judgment is to be entered in favor of the defendant”

Estate tax refund claim after bench trial (plaintiffs) Granted

“In Count III, judgment is to be entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendant as prayed in the complaint”

Estate tax refund claim after bench trial (plaintiffs) Denied

“In Count IV, judgment is to be entered in favor of defendant and against the plaintiffs.”

Estate tax refund claim after bench trial (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“In Count V, judgment is to be entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant for an amount equivalent to $250 plus $35.85 plus ten per cent of the amount recovered by this action.”

Shannon v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp.
· 1958-11-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over defendant is sustained.”

Shelton v. Lockhart
· 1957-08-29
Gift tax refund claim after bench trial (Robert E. Shelton) Granted

“plaintiff Robert E. Shelton is entitled to judgment against defendant in the amount of $9,317.25”

Intervenor counterclaim after bench trial (intervenor) Denied

“in connection with the counterclaim of intervenor, judgment should be in favor of plaintiff and against intervenor.”

Gift tax refund claim after bench trial (Jacqueline Elkins Shelton) Granted

“Plaintiff Jacqueline Elkins Shelton is entitled to judgment against defendant in the amount of $16,544.32”

Hopkins v. United States
· 1957-06-28
Defense judgment after bench trial (United States) Granted

“judgment must be entered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No assigned docket records were returned under three plausible Smith name variants.

A historical record

Judge Smith 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.