Randolph Bryant

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas district Retired 1951 · served 1931–1951 Appointed by Herbert Hoover (Republican) 9 signed orders read

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

How Judge Bryant decides

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

What persuades

He treated practical utility and actual commercial use as important checks on broad patent claims.

“do not consider it to be of any practical utility, because of the inherent difficulty in effecting a triple action separation of such volatile constituents in a single chamber.”

He imposed liability when processed dry gas displaced wet gas beneath lessors' acreage in breach of implied lease covenants.

“The defendants are liable because of the breach of their implied covenants not to injure the leases of the plaintiffs.”

He relied on the absence of contemporaneous log entries when assessing whether government vessels had given a timely warning.

“No such notation is contained in these logs.”

Procedural preferences

He used a precisely calculated remittitur to preserve an otherwise sound jury verdict.

“the excess is susceptible of exact computation and amounts to the sum of $40.40”

When an agency's definition exceeded delegated authority, he applied the statutory exemption by making the production-area determination himself.

“In the absence of a valid definition, by the Administrator, of ‘area of production,’ the plaintiffs, and each of them, within the meaning of Section 13(a) (10) were employed by the defendant within the area of production of cotton.”

Cautions

A crew's praiseworthy work did not become compensable salvage while its shipping obligations remained in force.

“There was no complete and final abandonment of the Aurora by the Master, nor release of the crew from their obligations arising from the shipping articles”

A sovereign claimant could not obtain possession of a vessel without substantial compliance with its own requisition law.

“Libellant the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium never made any substantial compliance with the provisions of the Belgian law relating to the requisitions of vessels.”

Signed rulings

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

Killingsworth v. Ætna Life Insurance
· 1931-04-25
Motion for new trial (defendant insurer) Granted in part

“If a remittitur is filed by plaintiff in the sum of $40.40, as of the date of judgment herein and within thirty days from the date hereof, the motion for new trial will be denied, otherwise the same will be granted.”

Amazon Petroleum Corporation v. Railroad Commission
· 1934-02-12

The court held federal petroleum regulations beyond the authority delegated by Congress and directed submission of a decree, but the published text does not state the decree's operative terms.

Amazon Petroleum Corporation v. Railroad Commission
· 1934-02-12

Bryant dissented from the three-judge panel's refusal to enjoin state oil-production orders; the panel disposition is not attributed to him.

Dee Co. v. Sun Oil Co.
· 1940-08-22
Patent infringement claim (plaintiff) Denied

“decree may be submitted for defendant within twenty days from the date hereof.”

Government of the Kingdom of Belgium v. Lubrafol
· 1941-05-17
Vessel possession claim (Government of the Kingdom of Belgium) Denied

“The libellant is not entitled to possession of the Vessel Lubrafol, her tackle, etc., and the libel should be dismissed, at libellant’s cost.”

Clark v. Jacksonville Compress Co.
· 1941-11-22
Flsa wage claim (plaintiff employees) Denied

“The plaintiffs, and each of them, are wholly exempt from the minimum wage, maximum hours, and overtime provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938”

Stott v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co.
· 1946-01-21
Oil and gas royalty claim (plaintiff royalty owners) Granted

“The plaintiffs should recover damages from the defendants resulting from the recycling operations of the defendants, as shown in the schedule set out in the Findings of Fact.”

Fontenot v. United States
· 1947-06-30
Salvage claim (libelants) Denied

“The libel is therefore dismissed at libelants’ costs.”

D. M. Picton & Co. v. United States
· 1950-05-02
Admiralty damage claim (libelant) Granted

“Libelant, D. M. Picton & Co., Inc., the assured under said policy of insurance, is entitled to sue herein as libelant and is entitled to judgment herein against the United States on behalf of and for the use and benefits of said insurance companies.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No case-level docket records are available for this historical tenure, so the profile makes no claim about caseload mix or case duration.

A historical record

Judge Bryant 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.