JOSEPH DAVIS FARRAR ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
CLARENCE D. CAIN ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
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 the district court's grant of summary judgment must be vacated and remanded for written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Plaintiffs sued Texas government officials for due process violations under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment for the de…
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 Conclusions Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
[*87] PER CURIAM:
Joseph Davis Farrar and Dale Lawson Farrar filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas for damages pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 alleging deprivation of their due process rights by certain Texas government officials and employees. The district court, without articulating its reasons, granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, and the Farrars appeal.
Although findings of fact and conclusions of law are not required for the entry of summary judgment, we find that the complexity of the facts and the length of the record in the instant case preclude effective review absent the benefit of the district court’s reasoning. Hence, we remand the case for written findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Granite Auto Leasing Corp. v. Carter Manufacturing Co., 546 F. 2d 654 (5th Cir. 1977); Moseley v. Ogden Marine, Inc., 480 F. 2d 1226 (5th Cir. 1973).
It appears most likely that the grant of summary judgment was predicated on one or more of the theories of immunity advanced by the defendants. If such is the case, the district court may need to reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Dennis v. Sparks, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980), aff’g Sparks v. Duval County Ranch Co., Inc., 604 F. 2d 976 (5th Cir. 1979) (en banc). The court may again conclude that summary judgment is proper; if so, written findings of fact and conclusions of law will greatly facilitate appellate review.
VACATED and REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Imperial Residential Design, Inc. v. The Palms Dev. Grp., Inc., 29 F.3d 581 (11th Cir. 1994)
Authorities Cited
- Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1980)
- Sparks v. Duval Cnty. Ranch Co., Inc., 604 F.2d 976 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Whitted Mosley v. Ogden Marine, Inc., 480 F.2d 1226 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Granite Auto Leasing Corp. v. Carter Mfg. Co., 546 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. 1977)