Arthur Marshall Davis
Judge Davis no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Davis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Davis required a summary-judgment opponent to identify admissible evidence creating a genuine factual dispute; an unsupported denial did not prevent judgment on an otherwise documented record.
“No issue of fact being raised, the motion for summary judgment may properly be considered.”
He looked beyond an organization's charter to its practical purpose and the promoters' expected gain when evaluating a claimed charitable exemption.
“Accordingly, the Section 3(a) (4) exemption is not available for the 'Children’s Hospital bond offering because a ‘substantial purpose’ of the organization of the hospital is to enrich the promoters by providing them with large profits from the enterprise.”
Procedural preferences
Once a represented party's counsel sought a trial delay to locate witnesses, Davis treated that litigation choice as binding and as a waiver of the original trial deadline.
“The action of applicant’s attorney in seeking a delay in the trial for the purpose of seeking additional witnesses on behalf of the Applicant is absolutely binding upon the Applicant and is a complete waiver of the Applicant’s right to trial within the sixty-day period.”
Cautions
In a patent case, he treated a combination of known elements as protectable where their arrangement produced a new and useful product.
“the manner in which they are combined and utilized does result in a new product which is a proper subject for patent protection.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court denied the motion on the ground that the points of law raised by the Attorney General presented questions to be determined with respect to law matters, and that if such points were not determinative of the application, the motion could be renewed at a later date.”
“No legal basis appearing for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, It Is Ordered that the application filed herein be and the same is hereby denied.”
“It is the opinion of the Court that at the time the federal lien was filed of record the property described as the East 150 feet of Lot Thirteen (13) JOHNSON ADDITION, according to the plat of record in the office of the Maricopa County Recorder in Book 58 of Maps, page 17, located in Maricopa County, Arizona, was neither ‘property’ nor ‘a right in property’ of the taxpayer, William Johnson; that the plaintiff’s lien is of no force and effect with respect thereto; and that the defendant, Violet McAfee, is entitled to relief sought in her counter-claim.”
“Immediately following the opening statements by counsel for petitioner and counsel for respondent, petitioner moved for judgment on the pleadings and arguments were thereupon presented in support and in opposition to such motion and the Court thereafter ordered that such motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be granted.”
“To preserve the issues for the orderly determination by the National Labor Relations Board as provided in the Act, it is appropriate, just and proper that pending the final disposition of the matters herein involved pending before the Board, respondent, its officers, representatives, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all members and persons acting in concert or participation with it or them, be enjoined and restrained from the commission, continuation, or repetition of the acts and conduct set forth in Findings of Fact 4(h), (i), (j) and (k) above, or acts or conduct in furtherance or support thereof.”
“The Court is of the opinon that the patent which is the basis of plaintiffs’ first cause of action is valid and binding, and that the same has been infringed by the defendants, Twentier’s Research, Inc. and Max Twentier.”
“(13) The Plaintiffs shall take nothing by the second cause of action.”
“(12) Plaintiff, Hollister Incorporated, is entitled to an injunction against further infringement of the Schneider patent in suit by Max Twentier and Twentier’s Research, Inc.”
“Accordingly, the Commission is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as demanded in its complaint.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No electronic case-level dockets assigned to Davis were located for his brief historical tenure, so no caseload mix or duration claim is made.
A historical record
Judge Davis 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.