John Emmett Carland
Judge Carland no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Carland decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Carland treated factual disputes about gifts and their revocation as questions for a jury.
“The question whether there has been a gift in a particular case is for the consideration of the jury, and the evidence on the subject should therefore be submitted to it.”
He charged a creditor with knowledge that a prudent inquiry into warning signs would have disclosed.
“if facts and circumstances with respect to the debtor’s financial condition are brought home to him, such as would put an ordinarily prudent man on inquiry, a creditor is chargeable with knowledge of the fact which such inquiry would reasonably be expected to disclose.”
Procedural preferences
Carland left witness weight and credibility to the jury when evidence could support its verdict.
“It was the province of the jury to pass upon the weight and credibility of the evidence taken in the court below, and not of the trial judge.”
He treated interpretation of clear written operating rules as a legal question for the court.
“But we are of opinion that it was a question of law to be determined by the court.”
Cautions
Carland warned that judicial notice can cut against the party invoking it.
“judicial notice is a two-edged sword in this case.”
He would not infer causation from speculation layered upon another inference.
“We think a verdict based upon these inferences would be based upon mere speculation, and, therefore, not warranted by the evidence.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It follows that the bonds and coupons involved in this action are shown by the evidence to have originated in illegality and fraud, and, there being no evidence that the plaintiff is a bona fide holder for value of the same, it can take nothing by this action. Judgment should be entered for the defendant.”
“It results from the foregoing that the firm of Lentz & Odegard, either as a firm or as individuals, have no claim for exemptions upon the partnership property in the hands of the trustee.”
“It results from these views that the order sought to be reviewed should be vacated and set aside; that the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the referee should be vacated and set aside; that an order be entered to this effect, and also declaring the mortgage in question void, and no lien upon the assets in the hands of the trustee.”
“the judgment below must be reversed, and a new trial granted, and it is so ordered.”
“Therefore the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.”
“The judgment of the court below should be reversed, and a new trial granted; and it is so ordered.”
“The judgment of the trial court must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.”
“The judgment of the trial court must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.”
“There was no error of law in the action of the district judge challenged by this petition, and the petition is. accordingly dismissed.”
“The laws of South Dakota not having given a partnership exemption, the order of the referee complained of is erroneous, and must be vacated and set aside.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The twenty-one reviewed decisions cover varied litigation but do not establish the distribution of Carland’s full caseload.
A historical record
Judge Carland 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.