Arthur Loomis Sanborn
How Judge Sanborn rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Sanborn no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Sanborn
Arthur Loomis Sanborn was a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt, Judge Sanborn received a commission on January 9, 1905. Judge Sanborn served until death on October 18, 1920.
How Judge Sanborn decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Sanborn treated repeated adjudications and widespread public acquiescence as powerful support for interim patent relief.
“There is no question of the validity of the patent which has been several times adjudicated, and whose validity has been acquiesced in by the public almost universally.”
Sanborn required the statutory intent element before treating butter as adulterated for tax purposes.
“Under the statute it must appear that there was an intent to cause the absorption of an abnormal quantity of water.”
Procedural preferences
In United States Expansion Bolt Co. v. H. G. Kroncke Hardware Co., Sanborn allowed related patent and unfair-competition counterclaims to remain in the suit because they arose from closely connected matters.
“These matters ought to be all disposed of in one suit, as they relate to questions very closely connected together.”
Sanborn treated an order granting a new trial as interlocutory and therefore open to reconsideration before final judgment.
“The order of February 24, 1913, granting a new trial for an insufficient reason, should be set aside”
Cautions
In The Aurora, Sanborn dismissed an admiralty libel after finding that the services at issue created no maritime lien against the vessel. He described the technical ground for dismissal as an unwelcome result but held that maritime law supplied no lien.
“It is not an agreeable duty to be obliged to dismiss on a technical ground like this; but I am convinced that the maritime law gives no lien, and that the libel must therefore be dismissed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“claims 6 and 7, are infringed, and the others not”
Sanborn found that the butter fell outside the adulterated-butter tax statute; the published excerpt does not state a refund judgment.
“Defendant having confessed to a technical breach of the law, judgment against it for costs only should be entered.”
“Complainant moved for a temporary injunction on patent No. 863,120, for a washing machine, issued August 13, 1907, to A. F. Victor, now owned by complainant, and after the motion was heard it was agreed by the parties that such hearing might be treated as a final one, and the affidavits as depositions. ... Decree for defendant, with costs.”
“A decree should be entered for complainants, finding infringement in making and selling Exhibits 3 and 8, and equivalent devices, and for an injunction an.d accounting, with costs.”
“Complainants are entitled to decree for a perpetual injunction, and for damages and profits.”
“I think the order of the referee should be reversed.”
The opinion explains why the indictment’s statutory theory failed but does not state a final dispositive command in the published text.
“The motion in arrest of judgment is denied.”
“The motion of the defendant to intervene is allowed”
“the motions of the plaintiff to strike out portions of the answer and six interrogatories are denied.”
“The order of February 24, 1913, granting a new trial for an insufficient reason, should be set aside; plaintiff to' have until April 16, 1915, to give notice that he desires a new trial”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No assigned docket records were returned for Sanborn’s tenure, so no caseload mix or case-duration summary is available.
A historical record
Judge Sanborn no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.