James Douglas Elliott
Judge Elliott no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Elliott decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Elliott treated statutory text as controlling when a later removal provision contained no exception for the claim before him.
“On the other hand, it must be presumed that Congress intended the plain meaning of the language used in the statute, and that such interpretation should carry its force and effect to all defendants reasonably within its terms. If the amendment to section 33 is to have any force, or is to be given any effect, it must be held to apply to all alike who are included within its terms.”
He reduced a damages award when the claimant’s proof did not establish the full amount sought.
“The burden is upon the plaintiff, however, to establish her loss, and I am therefore compelled to reduce the fire loss far below the claims of the plaintiff.”
Procedural preferences
Elliott allowed liberal amendment of existing issues but would not permit a late amendment that introduced an entirely new objection.
“An amendment to these objections, that ' serves the purpose of amplifying, making more definite, or making specific the objections that have been filed, objections of which the original objections gave due notice, simply an amendment to make this effective should in my judgment be allowed at any stage of the proceedings. I can find no authority, however, for the exercise of a discretion, or that discretion is vested in the court, authorizing an amendment of this kind, raising a new issue, at this stage of these proceedings. It is too late for the allowance of this amendment offered by the objecting creditor, after the expiration of the 10 days limited by order No. 32 (89 Fed. xiii, 32 C. C. A. xxxi) of the general' orders in bankruptcy, for the reason that this proposed amendment, goes further than to bring forward and make effective that which was in some shape already within the terms of the objections filed. In re Peck (D. C.) 120 Fed. 977; In re Mercur (D. C.) 116 Fed. 655; In re Pierce (D. C.) 103 Fed. 65; In re Gift (D. C.) 130 Fed. 230. I have duly considered opinions seeming to indicate a different conclusion, as follows: In re Lesser (D. C.) 108 Fed. 205; In re Knaszak (D. C.) 151 Fed. 503; In re Nathanson (D. C.) 152 Fed. 586; In re Carley, 117 Fed. 132, 55 C. C. A. 146. Upon an earnest consideration of these ‘cás.es and others of like import, I can find no justification for assuming discretion to permit the filing of an amendment under the conditions outlined in .this case, presenting an 'entirely new *359issue.”
He required litigants seeking equitable relief from a judgment to show diligence and use ordinary review procedures when available.
“The complainant failed to avail itself of the well defined! and recognized methods of reviewing or appealing from the action of said court, has failed to show either diligence or merit on its attempted statement of mistake and accident, but affirmatively shows that said judgment was not entered by accident or mistake, but was the court’s deliberate construction of said statutes.”
Cautions
Evidence obtained through a search involving federal officers required compliance with federal warrant standards.
“whenever officers of the government participate in a search and seizure, regardless of who directs the particular action, if the evidence thus obtained is to be used in a federal court, such officer must be fortified with the proper authority as above indicated.”
Elliott would not infer an unlawful assessment method from arithmetic coincidence without evidence that officials actually used it.
“There is nothing in the record with reference to this percentage, nor is there anything in the record that in my judgment should be construed as a suggestion that any such percentage was' ever used.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The order of the referee will be reversed.”
“That portion of the order of the referee appealed from by the bankrupt herein refusing to set off to the bankrupt as exempt the policies of life, insurance referred to therein should he reversed and judgment entered in favor of the bankrupt for the four policies of insurance claimed by him”
“and also affirming the portion of the order appealed from by the trustee setting aside the homestead to the bankrupt.”
“The order of the referee brought here for review is hereby in all things affirmed.”
“Let judgment be entered affirming the findings of fact, and in all things affirming the judgment of the referee brought here for review.”
“The application for leave to file amended specifications is denied.”
“The motion of the bankrupt to tax the costs set forth therein against the objecting creditor should be denied”
“It follows that the order sought to be reviewed should be in all things affirmed, the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the referee should be sustained, and that an order be entered to this effect.”
“an order should therefore be entered, in all things affirming the order of December 26, A. D. 1911, brought here for review.”
“It follows that I am of the opinion that complainants are entitled to judgment for the relief demanded in their bill of complaint; ^ that they are entitled to enrollment in the Rosebud Sioux band of Indians; that they are entitled to an allotment of lands, pursuant to the provisions of the said treaties with said Indians, and the acts of Congress above referred to.”
“Wherefore I am of the opinion that the complainant Narcissus Drapeau, a white man, is not entitled to the benefit of the statute giving this court jurisdiction, and as to him judgment should be entered dismissing the bill of complaint with costs. That as to the other complainants they are, and each of them is, entitled to judgment for the relief demanded in their bill of complaint ;”
“It follows that findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment should be entered for the plaintiff upon all of the issues; and it is so ordered.”
“It follows from the foregoing that judgment should be entered sustaining the demurrer filed herein; and it is so ordered.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The publication-selected decisions do not establish the distribution of Elliott’s full caseload.
A historical record
Judge Elliott 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.