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

James Ward Morris

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia (now U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) district Deceased · served 1939–1960 Appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic) 15 signed orders read

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

How Judge Morris decides

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

What persuades

He credited unrebutted expert evidence when the opposing agency offered no witnesses to challenge it.

“If the Patent Office wishes to discredit expert or lay testimony, the obvious method would be to provide witnesses for that purpose.”

A prior-art statement shown by the evidence to be factually wrong did not defeat a later patent claim.

“Here it has been amply established that the product erroneously referred to by Chuck was not a part of the prior art.”

Cautions

A limitations defense succeeded where the amended pleading named the correct defendants too late and alleged no tolling or estoppel facts.

“Absent such allegations, the amended complaint must be dismissed.”

He declined judicial intervention before the plaintiffs completed the available administrative review process.

“the plaintiffs have not yet exhausted their remedy even before the final authority of the Association”

Signed rulings

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

Consolidated Terminal Corp. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639
· 1940-06-26
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“the motion to dismiss in so far as it is addressed to the first cause of action stated in the complaint of the Consolidated Terminal Corporation case must at this time be denied, without prejudice, however, to a renewal at the trial of the cause.”

Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“The motion to dismiss as to the second cause of action set forth in the complaint in the Consolidated Terminal case, consisting of the first and second counts for libel, is denied.”

Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“the motion to dismiss this complaint must at this time be denied, without prejudice, however, to a renewal at the trial of the cause.”

Sullivan v. Hoover
· 1947-04-03
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“The motion for summary judgment as to part of the first counterclaim is denied”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

“the motion to strike the second defense is denied.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“The motion for summary judgment on the second counterclaim is granted.”

Noreen v. Sparks
· 1952-05-14
Motion for rehearing (plaintiffs) Denied

“said motion is denied.”

Motion for reconsideration (intervening defendant) Denied

“The motion for reconsideration is denied.”

Federal Loose Leaf Corp. v. Woodhouse Stationery Co.
· 1958-06-12
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“the motion of defendant to dismiss will be denied.”

Republic of China v. Pang-Tsu Mow
· 1952-04-19
Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted

“the counterclaim for libel should be dismissed”

Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Denied

“The motion to dismiss said counter-claim for conversion is denied.”

Harris v. Stone
· 1953-07-20
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“Absent such allegations, the amended complaint must be dismissed.”

Otis & Co. v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc.
· 1949-06-06
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“The complaint will be dismissed.”

Temporary injunction (plaintiffs) Denied

“I do not believe that the article intended to be published is of such injurious character that even upon a proper complaint injunctive relief should be granted.”

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Harrison
· 1948-10-18
Motions to dismiss (defendants and intervenors) Denied

“the motion to dismiss the complaint and the motion to strike the record filed in lieu of the Lund affidavit will be denied.”

Motions to strike (defendants and intervenors) Denied
Application to enforce subpoenas (Securities and Exchange Commission) Denied

“The order sought by the Commission to enforce the subpoenas directed to the defendants in so far as they call for testimony and evidence relating to communications with their client, Cyrus S. Eaton, or require a disclosure of such communications, will be denied.”

Motions to dismiss (Securities and Exchange Commission) Granted

“The motion to dismiss the counterclaim and interrogatories with reference thereto will be granted.”

United States v. Plisco
· 1958-07-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“The motion of the defendant to dismiss will, therefore, be denied.”

Blanchard v. Watson
· 1955-07-26
Patent application (plaintiff) Denied

“the relief sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted.”

Cross v. Marzall
· 1950-04-24
Patent application (plaintiff) Denied

“I must conclude that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought.”

Foremost Dairies, Inc. v. Watson
· 1955-07-27
Patent application (plaintiff) Granted

“the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for, and judgment will be entered accordingly.”

A historical record

Judge Morris 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.