Great Lakes Cas. Co. v. Peano, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1909 (D. Or. 1940). · Go Syfert
Search
Great Lakes Cas. Co. v. Peano, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1909 (D. Or. 1940). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Greenwood v. Greenwood (ca3, 1956-06-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Greenwood v. Greenwood
3rd Cir. · 1956 · signal: see · confidence high
See Great Lakes Casualty Co. v. Peano, D.C.Or.1940, 1 F.R.D. 244 ; 5 Moore’s Federal Practice ff 52.11 [1] at p. 2681 (2d ed. 1951). 1 But did this February 1, 1954 effective date of the judgment operate to make the decree a denial of the motion to amend the advisory jury’s findings as an outstanding motion inconsistent with the order of the court?
discussed Cited "see" Greenwood v. Greenwood
3rd Cir. · 1956 · signal: see · confidence high
See Great Lakes Casualty Co. v. Peano, D.C.Or.1940, 1 F.R.D. 244 ; 5 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 52.11[1] at p. 2681 (2d ed. 1951). 1 But did this February 1, 1954 effective date of the judgment operate to make the decree a denial of the motion to amend the advisory jury's findings as an outstanding motion inconsistent with the order of the court?
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
GREAT LAKES CASUALTY CO.
v.
PEANO
Civ. No. 142.
District Court, D. Oregon.
Apr 5, 1940.
1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1909
Hugh L. Biggs and Arthur C. Spencer, Jr. (of Maguire, Shields & Morrison), both of Portland, Or., for plaintiff., E. R. Trayle, Arthur M. Dibble, Jos. H. Page, and W. H. Powell, all of Portland, Or., for defendants.
McColloch.
Published
McCOLLOCH, District Judge.

In denying plaintiff’s motion to amend Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment Order, and for additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I desire to make the following observations:

The motion was filed, following entry of final judgment, under Rule 52(b), 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c, reading as follows: “(b) Amendtnent. Upon motion of a party made not later than 10 days after entry of judgment the court may amend its findings o"r make additional findings and may amend tlte judgment accordingly. The motion may be made with a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59. When findings of fact are made in actions tried by the court without a jury, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may thereafter be raised whether or not the party raising the question has made in the district court an objection to such findings or has made a motion to amend them or a motion for judgment.” (Italics added.)

I would grant certain parts of the motion which do not call for an amendment of the judgment, if I were convinced that I could properly do so at this time. Specifically, I would allow additional requested Findings numbered X, XII, XIV, XV and XVI, and I would allow substitution of Conclusion of Law No. IV, were I convinced that Rule 52 (b) permitted additional Findings after judgment, where the additional Findings are merely by way of *enlargement of the original Findings and do not call for amendment of the judgment.

The discussions of the Rule makers and others at the Institutes, and the discussions in Edmunds and Moore, leave me in doubt.

At the hearing, Mr. Biggs stated that he thought he could not file request for amended Findings until after the judgment had been entered. With this I cannot agree. See the discussions foregoing.

Generally, as to whether amended Findings may be made following the entry of final judgment, see 28 Cyc. 1987; 46 Cent. Dig., Trial, § 951; Decennial Digests and General Digests, Trial, 401. The cases are conflicting.

For the reasons stated I feel that I must deny the motion in toto.