David W. Ling
Judge Ling no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Ling decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Ling treated factual characterization as controlling where tax consequences depended on whether property was held for sale or investment, while applying deferential review to the trial tribunal’s findings.
“The findings of the Tax Court on questions of fact are conclusive unless clearly erroneous.”
Procedural preferences
In statutory reemployment cases, he understood restoration to include the position’s current status and compensation, not merely a job title.
“The word ‘position’ as used in the re-employment provisions, SO U.S.C. A.Appendix, § 308, denotes not merely employment, as such, but also a status in relation to other persons employed by the same employer.”
Cautions
He rejected broad ethnic segregation justified by generalized language concerns and required any educational classification to rest on the individual child rather than ancestry.
“Omnibus segregation of children of Mexican ancestry from the rest of the student body in the elementary grades in the schools involved in this action because of language handicaps is not warranted by the record before us.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court is of the opinion that the cotton allotment on Citrus Valley Farms was not condemned by the Government, and just compensation for the land taken should not include any enhancement by reason of the allotment. The condemned land should be valued as agricultural land, suitable for the production of cotton, but without a cotton allotment.”
“The decision of the Tax Court that petitioners must treat the gain from the sale of 69 multiple unit houses in 1945 as ordinary income is Affirmed.”
“The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.”
“That petitioner should have made an effort to obtain other work and minimize the amount of his damages, but that he is nevertheless entitled to judgment in the sum of $1,800.00 as and for compensation for the year commencing April 18, 1945, and ending April 18, 1946, together with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum from the 19th day of April, 1946 until paid;”
“That since the proof shows said -container is not so made, formed or filled as to be misleading, the Libel and Amended Libel should be dismissed, the Monition and Amended Monition should be quashed, and the Clerk of the United States District-■Court for the District of New Jersey should be directed to refund to claimant the cost ■deposit made by claimant in lieu of a stipulation for costs in the sum of $250.00 and on deposit with said Clerk, and the United States Marshal for the District of New Jersey should be directed to release and deliver said 738 cases, more or less, of said article labeled ‘Jiffy-Lou Vanilla Flavor Pudding’ and that judgment should enter accordingly.”
“The decision of the Tax Court is reversed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No electronic case-level dockets assigned to Ling were located for this historical tenure, so no caseload mix or duration claim is made.
A historical record
Judge Ling 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.