John Donelson Martin Sr.

How Judge Martin rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1935–1962
Appointed by
Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic)
Commissioned
1935-05-03
Education
University of Virginia School of Law, LL.B. (1905)
Signed orders read
17

How Judge Martin decides

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

What persuades

Martin granted unfair-competition relief when product wording had acquired a secondary meaning, while separating that relief from unsupported patent and trademark theories.

“The words ‘hot patches,’ as long used and applied by the plaintiff, have acquired a secondary meaning to such extent that injunctive relief should be granted against the use of the exact expression, or words of like import, by the defendants in connection with their product.”

Procedural preferences

Martin declined to alter ordinary jury-selection procedures without a concrete basis to doubt that a fair and impartial jury could be selected.

“No basis whatever is found for a suspicion that a fair and impartial jury cannot be selected for the re-trial of this cause from the regular jury panel, drawn in rigid adherence to due process of law.”

Cautions

Martin treated a timely administrative claim and rejection of that same claim as jurisdictional prerequisites in war-risk insurance litigation.

“It was essential that the plaintiff, in his representative capacity, file a claim with the Veterans Administration for war risk insurance benefits, within the period specified in the statute of limitation.”

Signed rulings

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

La Croix v. United States
· 1935-07-27
Motions to dismiss (government) Granted

“The motion-to dismiss the bill is sustained;”

United States v. Reese
· 1939-06-13
Demurrer (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, the demurrer of the defendant and his motion to quash the information are both overruled.”

Motion to quash information (defendant) Denied
United States v. Guthrie
· 1935-06-06
Motion for new trial (defendant) Denied

“Let the motion for a new trial be denied.”

United States v. One 1935 Ford Standard Coach Automobile
· 1935-12-17
Petition to rescind forfeiture (finance company) Granted

“An order will be entered in compliance with this opinion, vacating the ex parte order and directing the return of the seized automobile to the petitioner, C. I. .T. Corporation.”

In re Hall
· 1936-08-31
Petition to review referee order (trustee and creditors) Denied

“The petition for review having been duly considered and the referee’s orders and rulings being found correct, the referee’s orders are in all respects approved and confirmed.”

Coleman v. United States
· 1937-01-16
Motions to dismiss (government) Granted

“the motion of the defendant to dismiss this suit is sustained.”

United States v. City State Bank
· 1937-03-04
Motion for judgment on pleadings (government) Granted

“Accordingly, on motion of the United States, judgment in favor of the plaintiff is awarded on the pleadings.”

Privett v. West Tennessee Power & Light Co.
· 1937-07-03
Motion for new trial (defendant) Denied

“The motion for a new trial is denied.”

Shaler Co. v. Rite-Way Products, Inc.
· 1937-06-22
Application for injunction (plaintiff) Granted in part

“An appropriate decree will be entered enjoining the use by the defendants, or their agents, or persons acting under their authority, of the words ‘hot patches,’ ‘hot shot,’ or ‘hot,’ and ‘hot shot’ in combination with ‘patches,’ even with intervening words. The decree will provide that patent No. 1,970,698 is held invalid for want of invention; and that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief by virtue of-any alleged right under the registered trade-mark.”

Taylor v. McCowat-Mercer Printing Co.
· 1939-06-13
Motion for new trial (defendant) Denied

“The motions for a new trial and for a directed verdict are overruled.”

Motion for directed verdict (defendant) Denied
West Tennessee Power & Light Co. v. City of Jackson
· 1937-10-25
Application for injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, it follows that the injunction sought by plaintiff public utility corporation is denied, and the- motion of the defendant municipality to dismiss the bill for want of equity is allowed.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Memphis Street Railway Co.
· 1939-07-20
Application for fees and expenses (bondholders' committee and counsel) Denied

“The fees, compensation and expense allowances claimed by the .petitioners are again disallowed.”

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 Martin 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.