LeBaron Bradford Colt

U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island district Appointed by James A. Garfield (Republican) 25 signed orders read

How Judge Colt decides

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

What persuades

Colt treated a threatened commercial rollout as sufficient to support preliminary patent relief even before completed sales were proved.

“If sales have not actually been made, such a wrong is threatened, and that is sufficient to call for an injunction.”

When creditors opposed a bankruptcy discharge, Colt required clear proof of the statutory violations identified in their specifications.

“The court should be clearly satisfied, upon the proof submitted, of the violation of the provisions of the bankrupt act set out in the specifications before withholding a discharge.”

For combination patents, Colt required the accused device to employ every claimed element or an equivalent before finding infringement.

“It is well settled that a claim for a combination is not infringed unless all of the elements composing the combination, or equivalents therefor, are employed.”

Procedural preferences

Colt required a plain, doubt-free violation before enforcing an existing injunction through a summary motion.

“Motions of this character are -not granted unless the violation of the injunction is plain and free from doubt.”

He preferred a full merits hearing over extraordinary interim control of a trust where delay did not threaten irreparable loss.

“If there is not great danger that the complainant will suffer irreparable loss by any delay, it would seem better, in a cause of such magnitude, and where the interests of so many are affected, to proceed to a full bearing upon the merits before calling into action these extraordinary remedies, which might possibly work great injury.”

Signed rulings

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

Snow & Burgess v. One Hundred & Eighty & Three-Fourths Tons of Scrap Iron
· 1882-02-23
Exceptions to attachment (claimant) Denied

“Exceptions overruled.”

Tufts v. Matthews
· 1882-03-04
Demurrer (defendants) Granted

“Demurrer sustained.”

White v. Heath
· 1882-07-01
Preliminary injunction (complainants) Granted

“The motion for a preliminary injunction is granted.”

In re Boynton
· 1882-02-07
Bankruptcy discharge application (bankrupts) Granted

“We are not so satisfied, and therefore a discharge is granted in each case.”

Latham v. Chafee
· 1881-04-27
Plea in abatement (defendant) Denied

“The plea is therefore overruled.”

Perry v. Mechanics' Mutual Ins.
· 1882-03-11
Insurance policy claim (plaintiffs) Granted

“judgment entered in favor of the other plaintiffs for the amount of the policy, with legal interest from November 24, 1880.”

McWilliams Manuf'g Co. v. Blundell
· 1882-02-24
Preliminary injunction (complainant) Granted

“The motion is granted.”

Perry v. Phœnix Assurance Co.
· 1881-07-01
Demurrer (defendant) Granted

“The demurrer is, therefore, sustaiued.”

Mason v. Hartford, Providence & Fishkill R.
· 1882-02-04
Motions to strike (defendants) Granted

“(1) The defendants’ motion to strike from the files complainants’ replications to plea and demurrer is granted.”

Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“(2) The defendants’ motion to dismiss bill of revivor is denied.”

Motion to amend (complainants) Denied

“(3) The complainants’ motion to amend bill of revivor is denied.”

Cross v. Livermore
· 1881-07-01
Preliminary injunction (complainant) Denied

“Upon the whole, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not made out a case, under the evidence submitted, that would warrant the granting of a preliminary injunction, and the motion is therefore denied.”

Washington Mills Emery Manuf'g Co. v. Commercial Fire Ins.
· 1882-10-14
Motion for new trial (defendant insurers) Denied

“Motion for a new trial denied.”

Latham v. Chafee
· 1881-05-23
Motion for receiver and injunction (complainant) Granted in part

“The motion is therefore denied, except in the above particular, and a decree may be entered accordingly.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No case-level electronic docket record survives in the reviewed archive for Colt's district-court tenure, so no caseload mix, duration, or motion-timing summary is available.

Put Judge Colt's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Colt actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Colt's own signed orders and cites them.