Court Opinion

ID: 9449634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:17:28.006054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:54.995147
License: Public Domain

RIVES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
This appeal imposes on us the tedious and laborious duty of examining the findings of the district court in the light of the testimony and the numerous exhibits to determine whether those findings meet the clearly erroneous test of Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. Fulfilling that task as best I can, I am under the firm conviction that the strip of land used as a road by motor vehicles prior to 1955 is not the same property that was taken by the City for street and drainage purposes in 1955, and, hence, that the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous. My differences with the district judge and with my brothers being factual only, I simply note that, with deference, I respectfully dissent.