Tillman Davis Johnson
Judge Johnson no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Johnson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He followed the state court of last resort when construing state law in federal court.
“The national courts, in construing a state statute, adopt the construction given the statute by the court of last resort of the state.”
He distinguished private industrial interests from public need when considering equitable relief.
“now that the war is ended they should not be required to do so for any private interest whatsoever.”
He treated mine lessees' operational independence as controlling over tax labels.
“the miners (leasers or lessees) who worked under and in accordance with the leases in evidence herein, were not employees of plaintiff; it was not their employer; they were independent contractors.”
Procedural preferences
He favored a workable corrective remedy that could end the nuisance while preserving the defendants' business if possible.
“the court is inclined to afford them every opportunity to continue their business.”
He required administrative findings to be supported by evidence and aligned with Congress's stated transportation policy.
“this finding of the Interstate Commerce Commission is amply supported by the evidence in the record”
He allowed a defendant time to answer after overruling a demurrer.
“The defendant will be given 10 days in which to answer the complaint.”
Cautions
He would not declare a statutory forfeiture without judicial authorization and a clear public interest.
“Without such authorization, this court, under the authorities heretofore cited, is without authority to declare the forfeiture”
He regarded successful adoption of a mechanical device as evidence of salesmanship, not necessarily patentable invention.
“evidence rather of successful salesmanship than of invention.”
He required convincing proof before correcting long-standing business records used to challenge a tax assessment.
“it is not sufficiently convincing to justify the correction of this alleged error in plaintiff’s books”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Failing in either of the alternatives above suggested, a decree will be entered in accordance with the prayer of plaintiffs’ complaint.”
“Applying the Pennsylvania rule, the demurrer of the defendant must be overruled; and it is so ordered.”
“Judgment will be for plaintiff in the said sum of $71.12, with interest thereon from January 4, 1921, at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum.”
“In view of this conclusion, a judgment will be entered dismissing the complaint.”
“In view of these conclusions the complaint will be dismissed.”
“In my opinion, claim 4 is invalid for lack of invention, in view of the state of the art at the time of the filing of the application, and I so hold.”
“the Plant patent must be held invalid on the same grounds in respect of each of the claims alleged to have been infringed by the defendant, and I so hold.”
“We think this finding of the Interstate Commerce Commission is amply supported by the evidence in the record and that it is in strict conformity with the declared purpose of Congress”
“Plaintiff’s payments in the total sum of $18,655.79, for which claims for refund were made, were unlawfully exacted as social security taxes on payments by plaintiff to persons who were not, during the period herein mentioned, employees of plaintiff, and plaintiff is entitled to a refund of said payments with interest thereon at 6% per annum according to law.”
“That plaintiff is entitled to refund of the sums paid defendant on September 26, 1942 upon said erroneous assessment, to-wit, $2072.29, and to judgment againt defendant for said sum with lawful interest at six per cent per annum since the date of payment, and for costs.”
“the plaintiffs in these actions are entitled to judgment as prayed for.”
“Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff take nothing by reason of this action, and that said action be and the same hereby is dismissed.”
“Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the money paid over to the Collector of Internal Revenue at Salt Lake City, Utah, for and in behalf of the defendant United States Government on September 30, 1944, in the sum of $3,821.94, together with interest thereon at six per cent per annum from said date.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The located decisions span taxation, labor, patents, public lands, transportation, mining, veterans' rights, and industrial nuisance disputes. They do not establish the distribution of Johnson's full caseload.
A historical record
Judge Johnson 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.