Bartol v. McGinnes

E.D. Pennsylvania

Bartol v. McGinnes

194 F. Supp. 82, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3227

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided May 17, 1961·No. Civ. A. No. 24596·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

GRIM, District Judge.

After the filing of the court’s opinion, findings of fact and conclusions of law, the defendant filed a motion under F.R. Civ.P. 52(b), 28 U.S.C., requesting the court to supplement its opinion and findings by making three additional findings of fact.

After a careful rereading and analysis of the testimony in the case the court is of the opinion that the requested additional findings of fact should not be made for the reason that none of them is warranted by the evidence in the case.

Order

And now, May 17, 1961, defendant’s request for additional findings of fact is refused.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GRIM, District Judge.

After the filing of the court’s opinion, findings of fact and conclusions of law, the defendant filed a motion under F.R. Civ.P. 52(b), 28 U.S.C., requesting the court to supplement its opinion and findings by making three additional findings of fact.

After a careful rereading and analysis of the testimony in the case the court is of the opinion that the requested additional findings of fact should not be made for the reason that none of them is warranted by the evidence in the case.

Order

And now, May 17, 1961, defendant’s request for additional findings of fact is refused.

Bartol v. McGinnes, 194 F. Supp. 82, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3227 (E.D. Pa. 1961).

Pincite

194 F. Supp. 82 (Bartol v. McGinnes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related