🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Carroll Clark Hincks

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut district Deceased · served 1931–1953 Appointed by Herbert Hoover (Republican) 30 signed orders read

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

How Judge Hincks decides

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

What persuades

He found irreparable harm and no adequate legal remedy where continued price cutting violated state fair-trade protections.

“The acts of the defendant and the continuance thereof have caused and will *746continue to cause irreparable damage to the plaintiff, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.”

He gave decisive weight to official tax assessments over later generalized recollections about inventory value.

“the fact of official assessments, regular on their face, made and recorded from year to year, outweighs the vague and blanket estimates of quantities and values made years later.”

Cautions

He declined preliminary patent relief when the case turned on a substantially doubtful claim-construction question.

“Since the success of the suit thus depends upon the construction of the claims which to me seems a question substantially doubtful, the application for preliminary injunction is denied.”

He required an adequate record for the court's independent judgment before confirming a creditor arrangement.

“I hold only that the record is insufficient for a finding .based on ‘an informed, independent judgment of the court.’”

Signed rulings

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

In re Guild, Bloomfield & Jensen, Inc.
· 1931-07-28
Bankruptcy review petition (conditional vendors) Granted in part

“Subject to that limitation, they are entitled to further hearing, if desired. Accordingly the matter may be referred to the referee as special master for hearing and determination not inconsistent with this opinion.”

Hookless Fastener Co. v. G. E. Prentice Mfg. Co.
· 1932-07-28
Patent infringement claim (plaintiff regarding Sundbaek patent) Granted

“Both, I find, infringe claims 6, 7, 11, 12, 18, and 24 of the Sundbaek patent, No. 1,566,996.”

Patent infringement claim (plaintiff regarding Whitney patent) Granted

“hold the first six claims of this patent valid and infringed.”

Motion to voluntarily dismiss patent claim (plaintiff regarding Statham patent) Granted

“the motion to dismiss without prejudice may be granted.”

Phœnix Ins. v. United States
· 1932-12-30
Exceptions to libel (United States) Denied

“The exceptions are therefore overruled.”

In re Brooks Sample Furniture Co.
· 1933-05-12
Future rent claim (claimants) Denied

“Consequently, my previous order confirming the disallowance of the claim must stand.”

The Nightingale
· 1933-07-17
Motion to vacate judgment (surety) Denied

“The rule, therefore, requiring the district attorney to show cause why the judgment should not be vacated is accordingly discharged.”

In re R & B Const. Co.
· 1934-01-08
Bankruptcy review petition (trustee) Granted

“On the record, as it is, the order of the referee must be reversed.”

In Re Semon
· 1935-05-28
Bankruptcy review petition (United States) Granted in part

“the referee’s order must be modified, and it is ordered that the claim of the government be allowed, without interest, until April 29, 1932; and with interest at 6 per cent, per annum from that date until fully paid with interest allowed.”

Baltic Mills Co. v. Bitgood
· 1935-08-28
Preliminary injunction (plaintiffs) Granted

“Orders of injunction in each case may issue, in the form heretofore submitted.”

Grosvenor-Dale Co. v. Bitgood
· 1935-09-26
Preliminary injunction (plaintiffs) Denied

“The petitions for preliminary injunctions will therefore be denied”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the defendant’s motions to dismiss each bill must be granted.”

Steel Stamping Co. v. N. N. Hill Brass Co.
· 1936-01-09
Patent infringement claim (plaintiff) Denied

“A decree may be submitted, dismissing .the complaint, with costs to the defendant.”

In re New York, N. H. & H. R.
· 1936-10-05
Petition for admiralty relief (vessel owner) Denied

“The pending petition, however, since it wholly fails to seek the limited relief available in admiralty, is wholly denied.”

In re New York, N. H. & H. R.
· 1936-10-09
Petition for leave to file libel (barge owner) Denied

“Petition denied.”

A historical record

Judge Hincks 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.