Court Opinion

ID: 9794790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:11:40.524028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:38.692219
License: Public Domain

SADLER, Justice (dissenting). District Court Rule No. 52(b) (7) provides : “The decision shall be contained in a single document; provided, that an amended or supplemental decision may be filed in the cause prior to entry of judgment; and provided further, that findings or conclusions not embraced in the single document herein ordered, even though appearing elsewhere in the record, will be disregarded; but where the ends of justice require the cmise may be remanded to the District Court for the making and filing of proper findings of fact and conclusions of law." (Emphasis supplied.) The findings in this case are adopted in the following language by the court: “The Court adopts as its own the Plaintiff’s Requested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and all Requested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the defendant inconsistent therewith are hereby denied.” The Order appealed from recites: “That the Court adopts as its own the Plaintiff’s Requested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed in this cause and which are hereby made a part of this Order as though set forth fully herein, and Defendant’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law not inconsistent therewith.” Neither of said orders is a compliance with the quoted rule, set out above. I find nothing in this record so much as suggesting that the ends of justice require a remanding of the cause to the district court for the purpose of “the making and filing of proper findings of fact and conclusions of law.” I would affirm. Accordingly, I dissent.