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

John Joseph Smith

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut district Deceased · served 1941–1960 Appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic) 25 signed orders read

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

How Judge Smith decides

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

What persuades

He required an antitrust plaintiff to plead how the challenged requirements contract caused the claimed business losses.

“The allegations of damage are, however, defective in that there is no allegation that except for the requirements contract plaintiff could have purchased equivalent goods from defendant’s competitors at lower prices, or allegations showing how he was in any other way forced out of business or made to sustain substantial losses.”

He considered Connecticut's policy and governmental interests when selecting the governing tort law for an in-state accident.

“There is a definite policy of the state favoring the allowance of such an action and the state has governmental interests to support such an action.”

Cautions

He declined to extend unfair-competition doctrine to restrict a useful device where the plaintiff showed neither substantial harm nor consumer confusion.

“Restrictions on the use of ideas and devices beneficial to the public should not be favored where no substantial harm is shown to the plaintiff, but only some incidental benefit to defendant, where there results no palming off or confusion of goods.”

In a capital case involving a minor of limited intelligence, he treated the right to counsel as a due-process prerequisite to using confessions.

“Confessions obtained while an accused is deprived of such a right to counsel are inadmissible in the trial of a capital case, and their use a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process of law.”

Signed rulings

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

MacKay v. United States
· 1949-09-12
Summary judgment (United States) Granted

“As a matter of law, the defendant, the United States, is entitled to a summary judgment which shall be entered forthwith.”

United States v. Smith
· 1949-10-17
Application to enforce subpoena (United States) Granted in part

“An order may issue enforcing the subpoena but permitting the presence only of outside counsel (other than counsel for the taxpayer) for the witnesses to advise upon their constitutional rights.”

Dysart v. Remington Rand, Inc.
· 1952-02-29
Objections to bill of costs (defendant) Granted in part

“Th-e following items of the amended motions de plaintiff’s expenses are hereby allowed: 1. Premium for bond for costs $75.00 2. Fees for Probate Court Copies 42.00 9. Transcripts 135.50 10. Transcripts 1,365.00 The remaining items are disallowed.”

Weiss v. Smith
· 1952-03-17
Motion to review taxation of costs (defendant) Denied

“The motion to review taxation of costs is denied.”

Amalgamated Local 877, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers v. United Aircraft Corp.
· 1952-06-12
Summary judgment (plaintiff union) Denied

“The motion for summary judgment is denied.”

Turgeon v. Shelby Mutual Plate Glass & Cas. Co.
· 1953-01-27
Summary judgment (defendant insurer) Denied

“The motion for summary judgment on the second count is denied.”

Perkins v. United Transp. Co.
· 1953-04-08
Motion for leave to file reply (plaintiff) Denied

“The motion for leave to file a reply is denied.”

Castro v. Cufari
· 1953-04-10
Motion for jury trial (plaintiff) Denied

“The motion for trial by jury is denied.”

Hartford Charga-Plate Associates, Inc. v. Youth Centre-Cindereela Stores, Inc.
· 1953-10-24
Application for injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“The application for temporary and permanent injunction is denied.”

Rossi v. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY
· 1953-12-22
Motion to reconsider remand (plaintiff) Denied

“The motion to reconsider the motion to remand is in all respects denied.”

Libman v. Sun Oil Co.
· 1954-01-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“It is accordingly ordered that the motion to dismiss be granted with leave to the plaintiff.to amend.”

Local 207, United Electrical Radio & MacHine Workers of America v. Landers, Frary & Clark
· 1954-02-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant employer) Denied

“The motion to dismiss is denied.”

Motion for more definite statement (defendant employer) Granted

“The motion for more definite statement may be granted, requiring plaintiff to plead the contract provisions relied on.”

A historical record

Judge Smith 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.