Marion Speed Boyd

How Judge Boyd rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Boyd 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
1940–1988
Appointed by
Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic)
Commissioned
1940-09-27
Education
University of Tennessee College of Law, LL.B. (1921)
Signed orders read
11

How Judge Boyd decides

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

What persuades

Boyd credited agency expertise on specialized statutory questions while independently checking whether the agency's interpretation remained reasonable.

“The contemporaneous constructions placed upon the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act by the Commission which possesses special competence in this field, are entitled to great weight and respect and will not he overturned unless they are arbitrary or plainly erroneous.”

Procedural preferences

Boyd treated a contractually selected workers' compensation regime as controlling when applying full-faith-and-credit principles.

“Since the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Pennsylvania covers and governs the rights and obligations of the parties, it follows that this Act must be recognized by the State of Alabama under the ‘Full faith and credit’ clause of the Constitution”

Cautions

Boyd declined forfeiture where the claimant and purchaser had neither knowingly nor negligently contributed to the liquor-law violation.

“Under the facts of this case, neither the conditional vendor nor the purchaser in possession of the tractor in question knowingly or negligently contributed to the violations of the federal liquor laws complained of, and the vehicle in question is not subject to forfeiture as against either of them.”

Signed rulings

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

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Weldon
· 1950-05-18
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“for Summary Judgment is sustained and judgment awarding the relief sought will be entered accordingly.”

Duskin v. Pennsylvania-Central Airlines Corp.
· 1947-03-18
Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s motion to strike is accordingly denied.”

Sanders v. Altmeyer
· 1944-11-21
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“the plaintiff is entitled to have her cross-motion for summary judgment sustained”

Mitchell v. Law
· 1957-06-15
Application for injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“The plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in his complaint.”

Mitchell v. Welcome Wagon, Inc.
· 1954-11-03
Application for injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“The complaint should be dismissed.”

Walling v. West Kentucky Coal Co.
· 1944-12-01
Application for injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“Upon the whole record, plaintiff is entitled to the relief for which prayer in the complaint is'made.”

United States v. One Model H Farmall Tractor
· 1943-07-26
Petition for return of forfeited property (claimant) Granted

“The libel should be dismissed and the tractor returned to the claimant herein.”

In re Defense Plant Corp.
· 1945-01-17
Petition for exoneration from liability (petitioner) Granted

“It follows that petitioner, Defense Plant Corporation, was in no wise responsible for claimant’s damage, and is entitled to full exoneration from liability.”

United States v. 284 Barrels of Dried Eggs
· 1943-07-29
Forfeiture petition (government) Granted

“The United States of America is entitled to a decree of condemnation as prayed, with costs.”

Heaburg v. Independent Oil Mill, Inc.
· 1942-09-09
Motion to amend findings and conclusions (movant) Granted

“it is hereby ordered that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered by the Court on the 5th day of August, 1942, be stricken and inserted in lieu *752thereof revised Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

Baltz v. Botto
· 1956-10-31
Application for injunction (plaintiffs) Granted

“Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction restraining defendants against further infringement of said Reissue patent No. 23,849”

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 Boyd 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.