United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the Claycraft Co., Defendant-Appellee., 408 F.2d 366 (6th Cir. 1969)

Federal Circuits, 6th Cir. (February 26, 1969)

Docket number: 18792


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/america-plaintiff-claycraft-co-defendant-36734866
Id. vLex: VLEX-36734866

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Jetero Construction Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. South Memphis Lumber Company, Inc., Defendant-Appellant., 531 F.2d 1348 (6th Cir. 1976)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - 77 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (Bna) 1573, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,678 Louis Gonzales; Rene Rivera; Gilbert Terill, Et Al., on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gerald T. Galvin, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 151 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 1998)

Text:

David E. Carmack, Dept. of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D. C., Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Grant W. Wiprud, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant, Robert M. Draper, U. S. Atty., Bradley Hummel, Asst. U. S. Atty., Columbus, Ohio, of counsel.

Lyman Brownfield, Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.

Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and O'SULLIVAN and McCREE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This appeal having come on to be heard; and the court having considered the briefs, appendix, record and argument on appeal; and it appearing that the opinion of the District Court does not satisfy the requirements of Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C. in that the facts are not found specially to permit appropriate review by this court and to support the ultimate conclusions of the trial court; upon consideration, it is ordered that the judgment be and it hereby is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to make findings of facts, state conclusions of law, and enter proper judgment. Deal v. Cincinnati Bd. of Ed., 369 F.2d 55 (6th Cir. 1966), cert. den. 389 U.S. 847, 88 S.Ct. 39, 19 L.Ed.2d 114.

This remand does not restrict the discretion of the District Court on motion or sua sponte to permit either party to reopen and submit further proof.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access