Complaint of the Ithaca Corp., as Owner, & Texas City Tankers, as Bare Boat Charterer, of the Ss v. A. Fogg, Her Engines, Etc., in a Cause of Exoneration of or From Limitation of Liab., Francis J. Dooley, 582 F.2d 3 (5th Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Complaint of the Ithaca Corp., as Owner, & Texas City Tankers, as Bare Boat Charterer, of the Ss v. A. Fogg, Her Engines, Etc., in a Cause of Exoneration of or From Limitation of Liab., Francis J. Dooley, 582 F.2d 3 (5th Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“when, because of absence of findings of fact or conclusions of law, an appellate court cannot determine whether the record supports the trial court decision, it should remand the action for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
30 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Charles T. Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC (ca11, 2020-09-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Charles T. Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC
11th Cir. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
when, because of absence of findings of fact or conclusions of law, an appellate court cannot determine whether the record supports the trial court decision, it should remand the action for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miranda McCuller v. Nautical Ventures, L.L. (2×)
5th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
A district court’s findings of fact under Rule 52(a) should “afford [the appellate court] a clear understanding of the ground or basis of the decision of the trial court.” In re Ithaca Corp., 582 F.2d 3, 4 (5th Cir.1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Metropolitan Pittsburgh Crusade for Voters v. City of Pittsburgh
3rd Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
However, other circuits have applied Rule 52(a)’s requirement of factual findings to district court orders governing the award of attorneys’ fees, see Ithaca Corp. v. Dooley, 582 F.2d 3, 4 (5th Cir.1978), and have reversed and remanded the denial of fee enhancements where factual findings were far more detailed than those here, see NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 812 F.2d 1332, 1336-37 (11th Cir.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Metropolitan Pittsburgh Crusade For Voters v. City Of Pittsburgh
3rd Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
However, other circuits have applied Rule 52(a)'s requirement of factual findings to district court orders governing the award of attorneys' fees, see Ithaca Corp. v. Dooley, 582 F.2d 3, 4 (5th Cir.1978), and have reversed and remanded the denial of fee enhancements where factual findings were far more detailed than those here, see NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 812 F.2d 1332, 1336-37 (11th Cir.1987). 47 More importantly, this court has held that we may "find an abuse of discretion when the trial court ... does not properly identify the criteria used" in determining attorneys' fees.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Getty Oil Corporation, Succeeded by and a Division of Texaco, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America
5th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
In that case we stated: “When, because of absence of findings of fact or conclusions of law, an appellate *1261 court cannot determine whether the record supports the trial court decision, it should remand the action for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Id. at 4.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wattleton v. International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers
7th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Complaint of Ithaca Corp., 582 F.2d 3, 4 (5th Cir. 1978).
cited Cited as authority (rule) 29 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1389, 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,996
7th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Complaint of Ithaca Corp., 582 F.2d 3, 4 (5th Cir. 1978).
cited Cited "see" NAACP v. City of Corinth
N.D. Miss. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. DeKalb County, 582 F.2d 3 (5 Cir. 1978).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Alf Key v. Mrs. Louise P. Wise (4×)
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Complaint of Ithaca Corp., 582 F.2d 3 , 4 (5th Cir. 1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Complaint of the Ithaca Corporation, as Owner, and Texas City Tankers, as Bare Boat Charterer, of the Ss
v.
A. Fogg, Her Engines, Etc., in a Cause of Exoneration of or From Limitation of Liability, Francis J. Dooley
78-1350.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 10, 1978.
582 F.2d 3
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 82%
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (1)

582 F.2d 3

Complaint of the ITHACA CORPORATION, as owner, and Texas
City Tankers, as Bare Boat Charterer, of the SS V.
A. FOGG, her engines, etc., in a cause
of exoneration of or from
limitation of liability,
Francis J. Dooley, Plaintiff-Appellant.

No. 78-1350

Summary Calendar.[*]

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 10, 1978.

Schechter & Shelton, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Francis J. Dooley, pro se.

Sadler & Sadler, Howard C. Sadler, Port Arthur, Tex., Mandell & Wright, Herman Wright, Houston, Tex., for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~3]1

In February 1972 the tanker SS V. A. Fogg went down with all hands. Its owners filed for limitation of liability, and federal district Judge Noel ordered that all relevant claims be filed in Galveston, Texas. Appellant, Francis Dooley, a New Jersey attorney, filed a claim on behalf of Norma Shultz. Shultz signed a standard contingent fee contract. Dooley conducted discovery and investigated the loss of the vessel. About two years later Shultz decided to change attorneys and filed a motion to substitute appellee, Rassner & Rassner of New York, as counsel of record. Judge Noel held a hearing at which the parties agreed that the substitution would occur and Dooley would be adequately compensated for his services from the final settlement.

2

Two years later the claim was settled for $225,000. Judge Noel ordered that $69,500 be deposited in the court registry for distribution among the attorneys. The case was then transferred to federal district Judge Sterling, and Rassner & Rassner moved for distribution of the attorneys fees. Judge Sterling, ruling on the record, awarded $9,500 to Dooley, with $2,215.32 of that amount to go to Herman Wright for his representation of Dooley; and the remaining $60,000 to Rassner & Rassner.

3

This appeal is solely concerned with the allocation of attorneys fees. The parties contest, among other things, the number of hours appellant worked on the Shultz claim and the value of his services. Although the proper allocation of fees was in dispute, the district court entered no findings of fact or conclusions of law to explain its decision.

[*3]4

The law in this area is clear. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, "(i)n all actions tried upon the facts without a jury . . . the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon." Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). One purpose of this rule is to aid the appellate court by affording it a clear understanding of the ground or basis of the decision of the trial court. 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2571 (1971). When, because of absence of findings of fact or conclusions of law, an appellate court cannot determine whether the record supports the trial court decision, it should remand the action for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Premier Corp. v. Serrano, 565 F.2d 1353 (5th Cir. 1977); Echols v. Sullivan, 521 F.2d 206, 207 (5th Cir. 1975); Sellers v. Wollman, 510 F.2d 119, 122 (5th Cir. 1975).

5

We cannot treat the issues raised on appeal without knowing the basis for the trial court's allocation of attorneys fees. We therefore vacate the order appealed from and remand the cause to the district court with directions to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment accordingly on this or a supplemented record.

[*~4]6

VACATED and REMANDED.

*

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I