John Jordan Gore

How Judge Gore rules, drawn from 9 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Gore 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
1923–1939
Appointed by
Warren G. Harding (Republican)
Commissioned
1923-03-02
Education
Read law (1899)
Signed orders read
9

How Judge Gore decides

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

What persuades

Gore treated securities pledged as collateral, rather than sold, as outside the documentary-stamp assessment.

“The stocks were not actually sold, but were only pledged or collated as security for money borrowed.”

Gore held that a newspaper’s good-faith news purpose did not privilege false and defamatory publication.

“The publication in a newspaper of false and defamatory matter is not privileged, because made in good faith as a matter of news.”

Procedural preferences

Gore enforced the transactional boundary on counterclaims when the asserted claim did not arise from the subject matter of the original suit.

“the matters set up in the counterclaim did not arise out of the transaction whieh is the subject-matter of the suit.”

Cautions

In a removal proceeding, Gore required evidence supporting probable guilt and would not rely on remote possibilities.

“the court should be persuaded from the evidence of the probable guilt of defendants, and not rest satisfied merely with remote possibilities.”

Signed rulings

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

Tennessee Products Corp. v. Warner
· 1929-07-19
Motion to strike counterclaim (plaintiff) Granted

“the motion to strike the counterclaim should be sustained”

Motion to strike answer allegations (plaintiff) Denied

“the motion to strike the specific averments in the answer, as set out in the motion, should be overruled.”

Dean v. Caldwell & Co.
· 1934-03-19
Government claim for documentary stamp taxes (collector of internal revenue) Denied

“I think all the assessments are void.”

Columbian Iron Works v. Brock
· 1929-09-28
Claim for tax refund (taxpayer) Granted

“It is therefore apparent that there was no valid waiver or waivers extending the time for the assessment or collection of additional taxes for the years of 1916 and 1917, and the assessments and collection of said taxes for these years were invalid, and without authority, because said waivers were not executed within five years! after the returns were made, and plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover the amount paid thereon, with interest from date of payment, February 5,1926.”

Claim for tax refund (taxpayer) Denied

“The bill, in so far as it seeks a judgment for the amount of the deficiency taxes for 1918, will be dismissed.”

United States v. Motlow
· 1926-06-07
Government application for removal (United States) Denied

“It results that the order of removal is denied”

Petition for writ of habeas corpus (defendants) Granted

“the defendants will be discharged under the writ of habeas corpus.”

Dupont Engineering Co. v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co.
· 1925-03-09
Demurrer to libel declaration (defendant publisher) Granted in part

“An order will be entered, overruling grounds Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the demurrer, and sustaining ground No. 7 of same.”

Krotkiewicz v. United States
· 1927-05-16
Appeal (criminal defendant) Denied

“tbe judgment is accordingly affirmed.”

Buckley v. Verhonic
· 1933-07-10
Motion to strike affirmative defense (plaintiff) Granted

“the motion to strike the first affirmative defense to plaintiff’s second cause of action as set forth in the amended answer is hereby granted.”

Motion to strike affirmative defense (plaintiff) Granted

“the motion to strike the second affirmative defense to plaintiff’s second cause of action contained in the amended answer is hereby granted.”

Buckley v. Verhonic
· 1933-07-10
Demurrer to affirmative defense (plaintiffs) Granted

“The plaintiffs’ demurrer to the first affirmative defense is therefore sustained.”

Demurrer to affirmative defense (plaintiffs) Denied

“the demurrer to the second affirmative defense is overruled.”

Demurrer to affirmative defense (plaintiffs) Denied

“The demurrer to the third affirmative defense, therefore, is overruled.”

United States v. Frank
· 1933-09-14
Government demurrer to former jeopardy plea (United States) Granted

“The demurrer to the further plea in bar is sustained”

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 Gore 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.