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

William Augustus Bootle

United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia district Retired 2005 · served 1954–2005 Appointed by Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican) 25 signed orders read

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

How Judge Bootle decides

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

What persuades

Bootle respected tax-motivated transactions when the legal steps were genuine and the taxpayer retained no hidden ownership interest.

“they also show legal transactions not fictitious or so lacking in substance as to be anything different from what they purported to be”

He enforced express contract limits on extra compensation rather than inferring payment rights from administrative measurement requirements.

“there was no specific provision for extra payment for general rock excavation.”

Procedural preferences

Bootle approached summary judgment in patent cases with particular caution when novelty and function depended on disputed technical evidence.

“it must indeed be a rare patent case which can be thus summarily truncated.”

He limited bills of particulars to preventing double jeopardy, enabling defense preparation, and avoiding trial surprise.

“Bills of particulars are granted only for two reasons: (1) to guard against double jeopardy or (2) to make possible adequate preparation of the defense and to avoid surprise at the trial.”

Cautions

Bootle would not allow sympathy to substitute for proof tying an injury to a federal employee acting within the scope of employment.

“Every finding of fact must have some reasonable basis in the evidence and cannot rest wholly upon surmise and speculation.”

He allowed investigative agencies to control the manner of a lawful inquiry, including excluding counsel whose simultaneous representation could prejudice the investigation.

“the Commissioner and his agents, charged with the responsibility of discovering the facts, should be permitted to determine the scope and manner of the investigation so long as they proceed within the law.”

Signed rulings

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

Haley v. United States
· 1975-05-29
Income tax refund claim (plaintiff taxpayer) Granted

“Haley is entitled to a refund of the tax and interest paid under the erroneous assessment.”

Shelton v. General Electric Credit Corporation
· 1973-06-12
Judgment on the pleadings (defendants) Granted

“Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to a judgment on the pleadings”

Adams v. Columbus Manufacturing Co.
· 1958-12-30
Summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is hereby denied.”

Southern Premium Stamp Co. v. United States
· 1960-09-26
Summary judgment (United States) Granted

“For these reasons the court is of the opinion that summary judgment must be granted in favor of defendant.”

Doe v. Roe
· 1959-12-29
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted”

United States v. One 1961 Chevrolet 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck
· 1962-04-04
Forfeiture claim (United States) Granted

“Accordingly, counsel for the Government may prepare an appropriate order forfeiting the vehicle and denying the claim for remission.”

Blount Construction Co. v. Housing Authority of Athens
· 1965-03-08
Motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict (defendant housing authority) Granted

“Accordingly, defendant’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is hereby granted”

Hubbard v. Southern Railway Company
· 1959-11-09
Motion to quash subpoena (Railroad Retirement Board) Granted

“Accordingly, the motion to quash said' subpoena duces tecum is hereby granted and sustained, and said subpoena duces tecum is hereby quashed.”

Gilbert v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company
· 1959-08-06
Declaratory judgment claim (plaintiff taxpayer) Denied

“After carefully considering the briefs filed by counsel in support of their respective contentions and the authorities cited by them, this court must and does hereby adjudicate and declare exactly the opposite.”

Barham v. United States
· 1969-04-01
Summary judgment (plaintiff taxpayer) Granted

“plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on this issue is granted.”

Mitchell v. Robert De Mario Jewelry, Inc.
· 1957-10-08
Motion for permanent injunction (Secretary of Labor) Granted

“The plaintiff in this case, James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, suing on behalf of said three named employees, is entitled to an injunction enjoining the defendants from in any manner discriminating against said three employees and is entitled to a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to offer said employees reinstatement”

United States v. Redding
· 1957-04-22
Statutory penalty claim (United States) Granted

“Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to recover of the defendant the sum sued for, $414.18, plus interest thereon at 6%' per annum from March 15, 1956.”

A historical record

Judge Bootle 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.