Elmer David Davies

How Judge Davies rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1939–1957
Appointed by
Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic)
Commissioned
1939-07-12
Education
Vanderbilt University Law School, LL.B. (1922)
Signed orders read
18

How Judge Davies decides

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

What persuades

Davies treated the final text of a consent decree as controlling when a requested reservation appeared only in counsel’s correspondence.

“The Court can transact its business only through the medium of its orders and decrees”

Davies revisited an earlier ruling when intervening Supreme Court decisions made adherence likely to produce immediate reversal.

“it would appear to be an idle ceremony to stand on the present law of the case, resulting in an appeal which would immediately terminate in a reversal.”

Procedural preferences

Davies distinguished pleading detail needed for a responsive pleading from evidentiary material better obtained through interrogatories.

“information sought on evidentiary matters obtainable by interrogatories may not properly be obtained by a bill of particulars.”

Cautions

Davies strictly confined federal jurisdiction and declined to expand it by implication.

“It is also well settled that statutes relating to the jurisdiction of United States Courts are to be strictly construed.”

Signed rulings

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

Steingruber v. Johnson
· 1940-11-07
Permanent injunction (plaintiffs) Denied

“the motion will, therefore, be denied.”

United States v. Crescent Amusement Co.
· 1940-02-21
Motion for more definite statement and bill of particulars (Loew’s and related defendants) Granted in part

“The motions for these demands will, therefore, be granted in part and denied in part”

Motion for more definite statement and bill of particulars (Columbia Pictures and related defendants) Granted in part
Motion to recast pleading (Crescent Amusement and related defendants) Denied

“This division of the motion, will, therefore, be denied.”

Motion to strike antitrust allegation (Crescent Amusement and related defendants) Granted

“the motion of defendant is therefore granted as to that part of paragraph 54 above indicated.”

Motion for bill of particulars (Crescent Amusement and related defendants) Granted in part

“these divisions are granted in part and denied in part, as indicated in an order filed herewith.”

Union Planters Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Henslee
· 1947-08-15
Motion to dismiss for failure to state claim (defendant) Granted

“The motion to dismiss is granted.”

Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Standard Acc. Ins.
· 1952-12-16
Motion to vacate third party order (third-party defendants) Denied

“the motion to vacate will be overruled and disallowed.”

Hall v. American Soc. for Control of Cancer
· 1947-01-29
Motion to strike jury demand and reply (defendant) Denied

“The defendant’s motion, which also contains a motion to strike parts of the reply filed by plaintiff, is, therefore, overruled and denied.”

Southeastern Motor Lines, Inc. v. Hoover Truck Co., Inc.
· 1940-08-12
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction should be denied”

Newark Stove Co. v. Gray & Dudley Co.
· 1941-05-28
Patent injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“injunction asked for will be granted by the court.”

In re Wellborn
· 1948-10-28
Petition to review bankruptcy referee order (petitioners) Granted in part

“the Findings and Conclusions heretofore filed by the Referee in Bankruptcy are approved and adopted by the Court as its own, with the following exceptions:”

United States v. Davis
· 1948-10-06
Motion to dismiss for failure to state claim (defendants) Granted

“the motion to dismiss will be granted.”

Hayes v. Crutcher
· 1956-01-16
Motion to set aside prior orders (defendants) Granted

“all previous orders in this cause should be set aside”

Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Granted

“the motion of plaintiffs for a summary judgment should be granted.”

Rhea v. Edwards
· 1955-12-13
Habeas corpus petition (petitioner) Granted

“the petition for the writ of habeas corpus should be sustained and the petitioner released from custody.”

Ezell v. Atlantic Life Ins.
· 1953-08-20
Motion to dismiss for failure to state claim (defendant) Denied

“The motion to dismiss will be denied.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The reviewed decisions predate representative electronic case-level dockets. This profile therefore makes no claim about complete caseload mix, case duration, administrative dispositions, or motion timing.

A historical record

Judge Davies 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.