ACME BOAT RENTALS, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
J. RAY MCDERMOTT & COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, V. FREEPORT SULPHUR COMPANY, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a judgment rendered without findings of fact or conclusions of law must be vacated.
The District Court entered a judgment without making findings of fact or conclusions of law. This appeal followed.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Summary Calendar Disposition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of the Court, this case has been placed on the summary calendar for disposition without oral argument.1 This appeal is from a judgment of the District Court sitting without a jury. The judgment was rendered without a statement of either findings of fact or conclusions of law. Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states: “In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon * * Such findings of fact and conclusions of law are mandatory and must be sufficient in detail and exactness to indicate the factual basis for the ultimate conclusion reached by the court. S.S. Silberblatt, Inc. v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 353 F. 2d 545; Mladinich v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 371 F. 2d 940.
The judgment is vacated and the cause remanded for findings of fact and conclusions of law not inconsistent with Rule 52(a) and the decisions of this court. Cf. Myles v. Quinn Menhaden Fisheries, Inc., 5 Cir., 1962, 302 F. 2d 146, on form of findings and conclusions.
Vacated and remanded.
. In order to establish a docket control procedure, the Fifth Circuit adopted new Rules 17-20 on December 6, 1968. See Wittner v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F. 2d 1165 [slip opinion dated January 23, 1969], Fn. 1 and Appendix thereto.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969)
-
Lettsome v. United States, 434 F.2d 907 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
Ethelyn Gilbert v. Sterrett, 509 F.2d 1389 (5th Cir. 1975)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wittner v. United States, 406 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Mladinich v. United States, 371 F.2d 940 (5th Cir. 1967)
- S. S. Silberblatt, Inc. v. United States, 353 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Myles v. Quinn Menhaden Fisheries, Inc., 302 F.2d 146 (5th Cir. 1962)
- United States v. Soviero, 302 F.2d 146 (2d Cir. 1962)