Leslie Rogers Darr

How Judge Darr rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Darr 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
1939–1967
Appointed by
Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic)
Commissioned
1939-06-02
Education
Cumberland School of Law, LL.B. (1909)
Signed orders read
21

How Judge Darr decides

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

What persuades

Darr treated factual detail obtainable through discovery as a poor fit for expanded pleading requirements.

“these matters are by way of discovery and that the defendants would have open to them methods by which this information can be obtained more satisfactorily than by pleadings.”

Darr accepted due diligence where patent plaintiffs could not identify greater detail before discovery.

“A showing of due diligence is all that is necessary.”

Procedural preferences

Darr emphasized simple, concise, and direct pleading and independently struck immaterial answer sections.

“The letter and spirit of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires simple, concise, and direct denials, admissions, and averments in pleadings.”

Cautions

Darr required competent proof once jurisdictional allegations about the amount in controversy were properly challenged.

“The jurisdictional facts being challenged in an appropriate manner, the plaintiffs must support them by competent proof.”

Signed rulings

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

Boysell Co. v. Hale
· 1939-11-09
Objection to interrogatories as fishing expedition (defendant) Denied

“A general objection of this kind is not good and this ground of the motion is overruled.”

Objection to scope of interrogatories (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court directs that all the questions be answered except questions 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 20, and (t) under question 24.”

Objection to producing model or specimen (defendant) Granted

“I think interrogatory 20 need not be answered”

Objection to interrogatories seeking penalty (defendant) Denied

“This objection is not well founded and the interrogatories will be answered in so far as this objection is concerned.”

Antitrust objection to interrogatories (defendant) Denied

“This objection is overruled.”

Buck v. Pettijohn
· 1940-08-14
Request for copyright injunction (plaintiffs) Granted

“The plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction as prayed for against Robert Petti john”

Claim for copyright damages and fees (plaintiffs) Granted

“the plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the defendant damages, costs, and a reasonable attorney’s fee.”

In Re E. H. Webb Grocery Co.
· 1940-02-01
Petition to review bankruptcy referee order (claimant) Granted

“It results that the decision of the Referee will be reversed”

Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Ehrhart
· 1940-02-29
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“the motion for a summary judgment will be sustained.”

Strahle-Johnson Supply Co. v. John Douglas Co.
· 1940-05-02
Motion to strike untimely motion (defendant) Granted

“I find that the latter motion was filed too late and sustain defendant’s motion to strike.”

Johnson & Gould v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co.
· 1939-09-01
Motion for more definite statement contract (defendants) Granted

“This part of the motion is sustained.”

Motion for more definite statement secret agreement (defendants) Denied

“As to this portion of the motion, the Court overrules.”

Motion for more definite statement damages (defendants) Denied

“That part of the motion asking that there be a more particular statement on the question of damages is, I think, without merit, and will be overruled.”

Stockton v. Consolidated Feldspar Corp.
· 1940-09-17
Motion to strike case from trial calendar (party seeking continuance) Granted

“This being true, the motion is well taken and will be sustained.”

Dayton Veneer & Lumber Mills v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.
· 1940-10-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“it is my judgment that the motion should be overruled.”

Fisher v. Taylor
· 1940-10-04

Darr explained that the clerk could enter default upon a proper affidavit, but the application was not finally resolved in the published opinion.

Starns v. Success Portrait Co.
· 1940-12-04
Motion to dismiss for lack of amount in controversy (defendant) Granted

“The motion will be sustained and the suit dismissed.”

Hahn v. Corley Mfg. Co.
· 1940-12-04
Motion for bill of particulars (defendants) Denied

“This part of the motion is overruled.”

Motion to dismiss for failure to state claim (defendants) Denied

“the complaint states a cause of action and this part of the motion is overruled.”

Motion to dismiss for lack of amount in controversy (defendants) Moot / procedural

“remands this part of the motion for proof and allows twenty days for said proof to be submitted.”

Green v. McGaughy
· 1940-12-30
Motion to strike injury allegation (defendants) Denied

“The motion of the defendants is overruled.”

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 Darr 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.