Legal Research on Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 50-52; on Pullman Standard v. Swint and "Clearly Erroneous" Rule; List of US Supreme Court Reports

    Ruleh Rt'l,Es or' ('rYIt- PRocEDl-RI.l

J0t; {1(fth ('rr. lgol)l .llloisl Cold Rt.lrier'ralt,r ( r,. t. l.rtrt
,lohrisor, ('t,.. 21!t F.ld 216 (9t1, ('ir. 19iit. ct,rt. rirnrerl. ;i:,ii
l .S. g(it . 75 S Crt. 100E. 2 L.Ed.2ii l0;l (11,;\r: f,''r, ,: \
irriil)i.221 F.:(l ?21 (lld Cir. 1,9ii'1. Do,itlt t.7',rtit,tt r )ttJ
F.2d 82.1 (iJd Cir. l9(i1), explairring Lit,d \. S(h( t!!t'il lti-
dirs/rics. lnc.. 2ir, l'.zd ?tl (3d Cir.t. cert. dtn jt,d. illiJ l-.S
E35. El S.('t. 5E. i L.Ed.zd 6(l (1960): Co., t.I'ctnt::uirr:riiu
R. R.. l2(t .4.2d 21., (D.C.I{un.Ct...\pp.19;-r{ii. ji Barr,,: &
Holtzoff. Federal Practice & Procedure 5 13(rj.l ar :i.l{i-j?
1\lright ed. 1955); 6 Moore s Federal Prirctrct' ' ilr.iii ar
3915 n 6a (2d ed i954t

]f the motion for a neu trial has treen cr,nditionr,lh
denied, and the judgment is relersed. 'sulrst-,.;ur.nt lrrr,-
ceedings shall be irr accordance u'ith th,, (rrder. r,f th(
appellate cou11.'' The ;rartl in u'hose far'or ju(ignr(.nt I a.

r'. u'as entered belos mar', as appellee, tiesiries seekirrg tr,
uphold that judgment, also urge on tht, airlrt,liat(, c('urt
that the trial court comnritled error in conditionallr dr:rr'-
ing the neu trial. The appellee mal assert this error rr,
his brief, n'ithout taking a cross^appeal. C./. Palltrsrtr, t.
Prnnsulutnio P. P., 23S F.2d 615, 65ii ((ith Cir. lltitrt:
Huglits r'. S/. Loui.s lt'al. L. Bascbal! Club. lrrt.. :l;)ti It,'.
993.997.221 S.\\'.2d 989,992 (1919). li tht at,r'eiiar,..
coun concludes that the judgment cann(,i sr::rj,j. t'ur a('
cepts the apl)ellee's eontentlon thai thert \{hS t,rr(rr )r, '.irt
conditional denial of the neu triai. it mal order a ne\\ rrii,i
in Iieu of directing the entr1. of judgment ul,or th(, r'erdir'..

Subdivision (c)t2t. n'hich also deals u'itli the situatiL,n
u'here the trial court has granted thc nrc,tron for judgnrenr
n. o. v.. stat€s that the verdict-u'inner ntav appl\ tt, the
trial court for a neu' trial pursuant to Ruk, 59 afrer rht
judgment n. o. v. has been enlered against him. ln
arguing to the trial court in oppo,sition tr, the nrotior, fr,r
judgment n. o. \'., the verdict-r.r'inner ntal . and ofren u'ill.
contend that he is entitled. at the least. to :, neu t:'ial. rrnci
the court has a range of discretion t{) grani a neu trral or
(u'here plaintiff u'on the r-erdict) to order rr dismissai c,f
the action u'ithout pr€judic(, instead of granting judgnr,.rt
n. o. \'. See Conc v. l{'csl I:irgittio Pttl1, I Pa],cr ('t..
sr/pra.3lJ(i t'.S. at 217,216.67 S.Ct. at ?iri. ?i,ti. lil L.l.d
E-l9. Sul,division (c)(2) is a reminder that the lerdicr-u irr-
ner is entitled. even after entr] of judgment n. (, \'.
against him. to movt- for a neu trial in thr u:ual ((rursr
If in these circumslances the motion is grantei. the rudg-
ment is su;rcrseded.

In some unu-sual circumstances. hc,u'eler. the grant of
the neu -trial motion mav be onll conditional. arrd rhe
judgnrent u ill not t,t supersederi. Ser tht situirtiL,l. in
Tibblt t. IJruin.219 F.2d 4?' lth Cir. ig(i(rr (upor, a
verdict for plaintif f . defendar, ,oves for anci obuin:
judgment n. o. \'.; plaintiff moves for a nru triirl <,1, the
ground of inadequate damages: trial court mighl pro1,e:"ir
hate gra.nted plaintiffs niotion, conditional u;)on re\ersal
of the judgment n. o. r'.1.

Even if the verdict-u'inner niakes nrr motion ft,r a r,eu'
trial. he is entititd u1rcn his appeaj fronr the judgmeni n. ().
\'. not onlJ' to urge that that judgment should bt, revers(.d
and judgment ent€red utr)on the verdiet. but thar error>
u'ere commitl.ed during the tria) u'hrch ar the leirsr entjrlt,
him tt, a neu trial.

Subdivision td t deals u'ith the situation u here judgm..nr
has lreen entered on the jurl verdict. tht, niotiori ft,r
judgn,ent n. o. r'. and an]'motion for a nerr tria) hirvu,g

heen denied hl tht. rrial court. The verdict-wir
apyx,llee. tresides st,t kirr;: to ulrhold the judgment
urg( ul)ot) the a)'l't'lla'.r' ({rurt tlliat rn Casg lhe trial
friui,rj trr halc erreC jlr t nl1,nrrg judtIn,r,rrl on the
ti)err are gr()unds fr,r grantrng him r. neu trial
directing the entr.r- oI .ludgnrent for hi: oplronenr.
apl)ropriate cases the a1rii1.il311. courl is not precluded 

1

it-*elf directrr,g that z, nt.q trial lre had. See l1]
Dichmann. ll'riohl d: Pi,gli. lnc..33? U.S. 801, 69
l:l2tj. 9:l L.Ed. 1?ul rl{.i.19r. Nor is it precluded in r
cases from remandrng th(, case for a determination
trial court as to u'hether a neu trial should be
Th. latter course is adlisat,l. uhert the gruundi
are suitable for the e\ercise of triil court d

Subdivision (dt does not attenr1ll a regulation
aspect"s of the procedure u'herr the motion for
o. r'. and an]' accompanling morion for a new trial
denied, since the problents havt not been ful)1' canr
in the decisions and the procedurr.is in some respee6
in a forniative stage. lt is, however, designed to
guidance on certain inrlrortan! features of the

Rule 51. Instructions to Jur.v: Objection
At the close of the evidence or at such

time during the trial as the court reasonabl]' di
an]' part]' ma1' file writt€n request.s that the
instruct the jury- on the lau' as set forth in
requesls. The court shall infornr counsel of
proposed action upon the requesls prior to t
argumenls to the jurl-. but the court shall inst
the jurl' aft€r the argument.s are completed.
part)' ma]' assign as error the giving or the fai
to give an instruction unless he object^s the
before the jur1. retires to consider its verdict,
ing distinctll' the matter to u'hich he objects and
grounds of his objeetion. Opportunitl shall be
en to make the objection out of the hearing of
jur]-.

NoTES OF ADVISOR)'COMMIT'TEE ON RT

Supreme Court Rule 6 requires exceptions to the
of the eourt to the jun which shall distinctil state
several matters of lau' ir, the charge to u'hich excepti
taken. Simiiar provisions appear rn the rules of the
ous Crrcuit Couru. of Appeals

Rule 52. Findings b1' the Court
(a) Effect. IEffective until August t, 1965.

also. subdivision (a) belou'.] In all aetions
upcln the facr,. u'ithout a jurl or u'ith an advi
jur)', the court shall find the facls specialll' a

stat€ separatelf its conclusions of lau' thereon. a
judgment shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58; a

in granting or refusing interlocutorf injunctions
eourt shall similarll' set forth the findings of
and conclusions of law u'hich constitute the
of it^s action. Request^-* for findings are not
sar)' for purposes of revieu'. Findings of fact
not be set aside unless clearll' erroneous, and d

Complete Annotation llat.ri.ls, see Tltle 28 U.S.C.A.

126



:.l!&'- ,;'il':rturt that in .o.. ti,* t?,ri
rtenng. ludgnrent on thr

,,g'-#"lii;.";X Tn:hF

il*,fiI+::'{::'','ff
fl ''n''#; ; ii ; I.?;,flI ;,:i
case for a a"rc.min.iiin I
a. neu -tnai should be srlr-at,le nhere. the groundi
rclse ol trul coun .t;..
.rt attempt s re-gulation s:
::._,1:: ": :, f or ju ds.nrrqng motion for a ne*. ;;:*t
have nor been fullr.d:.J
'ldl::.': l':'o'"'..1,o*!
il'"'"':;l;::" o::'{fo * -rtant features of the p[fi

rs to Jur.r': Objection
rtidence or at such earip
.he coun reasonabll. direq
Len requests th-at the cofr
.*_,1,"1 .". set forth in ftnalt tntorn) counsel of ine requeslc prror to 0,n,
out the court shall insUE
ments are completed. ti
Irr the Ft\.tng or the faiiul
unless. .he .objecus therul
(' constder lts \.erdiet, sE'
t<,_u'hich he object^. and 1i

Opl,o-riunir-v shali be gn_

I our c,f the hearing of 1f,

COMUITTEE o\.. RI.'LES
uires exceptions to the chary:
lich shali distinctlr state tL
r eharge to u'hich exception i
:'[)€ar rr the ru]es of the r.an
ls.

the Court
until August 1, IgE5. See.
r!\'.] In all actions tridjurl or with an advisorr
d the facts speciallr. and
rsions of lau' thereon. and
pursuant to Rule 58; and

(erlocutor.r' injunctions th
lorth the findings of fan
ich constitute the groun&
or findings are not neces-
r{'. Findings of fact shall
tearlr err<lneous, and due

j *r _: : i'. I'i'.' ". ll; ;'ui,:':T'i i'; "i'l:: -lJ:: I

?,1::' : 
; 
-,. lfrli";; :"i$"::;'xl ll:.'':i:

j 9*" ^:..; 
' ii "itl be sufficient if the find-

7:';,;-i':;:::,'$ll,l;1"i"lnX'ffi in'".1"'.:":I
l) ;'s',,' ..'- ,,i,,er. in an opinion or nlemoran'
j a*ttl '. .ii'la t, the court. Findings of fact
st a o<,.'l'- ,1'r'rr"l'^t. unnecessarv on decisions

f.f,m;.1 lf ;f"t i3,:' "" 
other motion

Tq, 1' l,: 
t,,;i,i-;',,,:X 

r 

o 
ifl " 11,' ;.',', "',.,:i"'dI i. 

':::: 
;Ji5'iioj1; ,i.1i'iix':fl;'xl

#$**,qfl **'fl,.,,+S;1:."+:$;

i+ir,liiti+r'.".ty",qru*F;.i
f-r tO' pU4'()SeS 0l 

rl

=.;- 
b:,s.il or, oral or docri nentarl evidence'

5;r i* i.t 
"=ia".unless 

clearll' erroneous,-'and

7 ia shali he given to the opportunitl'of the

; ;; tr' judg.-of the credibilitl- of the witness-

:- i; frrrdiiig.-of a master, to the extent that the

Io-- tan;,,. them, shall be considered as the find-

; ", tht court It u'ill be sufficient if the find-

l. of facr and conclusions of law are stated oralll'

] rrct,rd.d irr oper, court follou'ing the close of
!> 

"l'lot',nct. 
or appear lr] an oplnloj) or memoran-

k ": decision filed bi' the court. Findings of fact

rr ,*rrrciusron,. of lau' are unnecessarl' on decisions

J -,-r, under Rules 12 or 56 or anl'other motion

irt.rt,: as provided in Rule '1l(tr)'

rl' Amendment. Lipon motion of a partl made

*: b'.rr tharr 10 davs after entr)' of judgment the
.uuri ma] amend iL. findings or make additional
tdrgr- and ma1' amend the judgment accordingll'.
tlt nrorion ma1' be made with a motion for a neu'

rrj pursuant to Rule 59. When findings of fact
trt rurde in aetions tried bv the court u-ithout a

p1 . the question-r{ the sufficiencl- of the evidence
E tupport the findings ma1' thereafter be raised
rttther or not the partl' raising the question has
t d. in the district eourt ari objection to such
fuiurg. or has made a motion to amend them or a

Itror, for judgment.
t} rmended Dec. 2?. 19{6. eff. Mar. 19, l94E; Jan. 21.
lE; eff. Jull' 1. 1963: .A,pr.2ii. 1983. eff. Aug. 1, 19E3:
lF 2-q. l9ii5. eff. Aug. 1. 19ri5.)

Subdivision (a) Amendment
Congress niag postporte thc proposed

subd. (o) ontendment effeclitc August 1,

1985. nto! dccline to opltrot'c such
otrtcndnienl. or mog make ehonqes to the
onicndntcnl.

NOTIiS OT' AD\'ISoR)' CO]TIITIITTET] 0\' RT'LES

See Former Equitt Rule ?01.r-, as amended \or. 25, 1935,
(Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lau') and U.S.C.,
Title 2b, fornrer ! ?63 lOpiniorr, findings. and conelusions
in action against I'nited States) which are substantiallr'
continued in this rule. The protisions of L.S.C.. Title 28.

former 5S 7?3 ffrial of issues of fact: h1' courr) and 875
(Rerieu' in cases tried withour a jurl') are superseded in so
far as thel' provide a different method of finding fact.s and
a different metht,d of appellate revieg'. The rule stated in
the third senlence of Subdivision (a) accords with the
decisions orr the Gcotre' of the review in modern federal
equitl practict) )r i. applicatile to all classes of findings
in cases tried ',i'ithout a jurl u'hether the finding is of a

fact concerning u'hich there u'as conflict of testimonl*. or
of a fact deduced or inferred front uncontradicted testimo-
n1-. -See Silr'cr A'iri.g Coalition lllincs Co. v. Sr/r'cr rling
Consolidatcd llinirrg; Co.. C.C.A.8, 1913. 20{ F. 166, cer-

tiorari denieri illl S.Cr. 1051,229 tr.S.621,57 L.Ed. 1356;

ll'arreri t. KcL'1,. 1Sgl. 1; S.Ct. 83, 155 ti.S. 265.39 L.Ed'
111, Furrrr t l-crris, 1892, l2 S.Ct 821, 145 L.S. 132,36

L'.S. i36. 119. 31 L.Ed. 664 Kintbcrly t'. Arnts. 1889' I
S.Ct. 355, 129 t..S. 512. 524. 32 L.Ed. 764. Compare
Kaescr & Blair. lric. v. Mtrchant-s'z{ss'rr, C.C.A.6, 1933.

6{ F.2d 5?5. 5?€l: Dunn t'. Trcfrg. C.C.A.l, 1919, 260 F.

1.r7. 11S.

In the f<.rllou'ing states findrngs of fact are required in
all case: tried rvithout a jurl' (u'aiver b5 the parties being
permitred as inriicared at the end of the listing): Arkansas.
Crv.Codt. (Crari'ford. 1931) ! 364: California. Codc Civ.
Proc. (Leering. 1gil?) SS 6i12. 611.1: Colorado, I Stat.Ann.
(1935t Code Cir'.Prr,c. SS 232, 291 (in actions before refer-
ees or for possession of and damages trr land): Connecti-
cut. Gen.Stats. 55 566(1. 566{: Idaho. 1 Code Ann. (1932t

55 ?-302 through ?-3()5; illassachusett^. (equitl'cases). 2

Ger,.Lau's (Ter.Ed., 1932) ct,. 214. ! 23: Minnesota, 2 Stat.
(Mason. 192?l s 9311: \evada. 4 Comp.Lau's (Hillver.
1929) Se E?rii.|-r'?t 1: Neu Jersel . Sup.Ct.Rule i13, 2 N.J.
IIisc. i19i. 12;19 (192{): Neu Mexico. Stat.-{nn. (Court-

right. 1929) 5 l()iSljJ; North Carolina, Code t1935) 5 569;

North Itakor"a. 3 Conrp.Lau's Ann. (1913i Q ?641: Oregon.
2 Codt Ann. (193t)l ! 2-ir(12: South Carolina, Code (l{ichie.
193:) \ 61!1. Sout), I)akot-a. 1 (-lomp.l,au's (1929)

55 2i2;252f;t L'tali. Rer'.Srat.Ann. (i933) 5S I0{-26-2.
1(r{-2(;3: Verniont lwherr jurt trial u'aivedl, Pub.lau's
(1933) 5 2069. \\'ashington. 2 Rer'.Stat.Ann. (Remingr.orr,

19321 5 36?: \\'rseonsin. -sr.at. (1935) S 270.33. The parties
mar- waive this requirement for findings in California,
Idaho. Nortlr t)akota. Nevada. Neu Mexico, Utah, and

South l)akota.
In the follou'ing states the review of findings of fael in

all non-jury cases. including jurl' u'aived cases. is assimi-
lated to the equitl' revieu': Alabama, Code Ann. (Michie'
l92E) 55 9195. 6599: Clalifornia, Code Civ.Proc. (Deering.
19ll?) F 956a: but see 20 Calif.l,au Rev. l?l (1932)l Colo'
rado, Johrisot, v. Kourtlzt', 1ti95, 43 P. 445,21 Colo. 486,

semble: Illinois. Bal'er r. Hinicks. 1934, t91 li.E. 2t{1.

359 I11 13r.: llririiagrr r. lletropoliton Firr lns. Co.'

Rule 52TRIALS

Complete Annotation Iaterials, cee Title 28 U.S.C.A-

rzt



j

RULES OF CI\'iL PROCEDTJRERule

1935, 195 N.E. 420, 359 Ill. 584, 96 A.L.R. 169: Minnesota.
Stotc Bank o-[ Gibbon v. ll'altcr. 1926. 20S N.\\ {Z:j. l6;
Minn.37. 36; H'oldrori v. Page. t93{, 2ir3 \.\1 . .'9,1. l9l
Minn. 302; Neu' Jerser', N.J.S.A. 2:2-r-211.2-2i-363, as
interpreted in Brrssg t'. Hotch, 1920. 1I1 A. 5J6.95 \.J.L
56: Neu York, )bri' llortgage Corporaliotr t. Clotor
Const. Corp.. 1930, l?2 N.E. 265. 251 N.\'. l2E, t38;
North Dakota, Comp.[,au's Ann. (1913) S ?6.16, as amended
b1' N.D.l,a*'s 1933, c. 208; Milnor Holdinp Co. v. Holt,
1933. 248 \'.\'. 315, 63 \'.D. 362, 3?0: Oklahoma. ll'ichito
Mining and lntproretnent Co. t. Halt,190b, 94 P. 5Jt,. 20
Okl. 159, 167; South Dakota, Randall v. Btrk Tou.riship.
4 S.D.33?,57 N.\\',4 (1893); Texas. Czslard r. Flou'eis.
1929. 14 S.\\'.2d 109; Utah, Rev.Stat.Ann. (1983)
5 10.1-41-5: \rermont. Robergc t'. Trog,1933. 163 A. ??(1.
105 \'t. 134; \\'ashington, 2 Rer'.Stat.-4.nn. (Rerningron,
1932) AS 309-316: llcCullough v. Puget Sound Rcoltlt
Associatcs. 1913, 136 Pac. 1146, 76 \1'ash 7(r0. bur see
Contu'all t. Andcrson, 1915, 14E P. 1. 65 \\'ash. 369:
\4est \Iirginia, Kinseg v. Carr, 1906, 55 S.E 100{, 6()
!l' Va. 449. semble; ll'isconsin. Srar. (193i) S 251.091
Campbell r. Sutliff, 1927, 2t1 N.!t'. 3?4. tg3 \f is. B?0:
Gessler r. Era'in Co.. 1924, 193 N.\{'. 303. 182 \\'is. 315.

For examples of an assimilation of the revreu of find,
ings of fact in cases tried u'ithout a jur,r' t<, the rer-teu ar
laq'as made in several stat€s. see Ciark and Stcrne, Revieu.
of Findings of Faet.4 L. of Chi.L.Rer. ig(r, 2li (19:l;i

I916 .AMENDMENT
Note to Subdivision (a). The amended rule makes clear

that the requirement for findings of fact anC conclusiuns
of lau'thereon applies in a case nith an advison jurr.
This remoles an ambiguit.v in the rule as originallr.'statei.
but carries into effect u'hat has been considered iu. intent.
3 Moore's Federal Praetice, 193E, 3119. Huntit: r'. Hur.
a'ir:, 1943. 136 F.2d ?96. ?6 U.S.App.D.C. 66

The tu'o sentences added at the end of Rule 52ra)
eliminate certain difficulties which hale arisel, concernlng
findings and conclusions. The firsr of the tu.o senlences
permil" findings of fact and conclusions of lau to appg2;
tn an opinion or memorandunr of decisior,. See. e.g..
Ltnited Stales r. Onc 1941 Ford Sldor;. Tex.l94(i. 6r-,

F.Supp. 84. Under original Rule 53rar somr. courLs hart,
expressed the vieu'that findings and conclusions could nor,
be incorporated in an opinion. Dett,rtite Conric.s. /rir t'.
Brun-s Publicoliori.s, N.f.l93-o. 2t F.Su14r. 399; Pcnris.ul-
t'anio Co. for In-sttranec on Lit,es & Granlinct -4nnuilies
v. Cincinnati & L. E. B. Co.. Ohro tgtt 4lJ F.Sup1, i
L:niled States v. Aluminum Co. of Antcnco. N.\'.lg{]. :
F.R.D.2Z4 5 Fed.Rules Sen'.52a.lI. Case 3. see irlsc, s. r.
44 F.Supt, 9?. But. t<, the contrar\'. see Ilrl/aiori r.
L'nited Siatcs, Mass.193S,25 F.Sup1, i6i: CooL t'. ['nittd
Sto/c.s, Ma-s,s.1939,26 F.Supp.27:1. Proctor r. 11'hitt
Mass.1939. 26 F.Supp. 161: Green l-alleg Creotttcry. Ittc
r. L-nited Slalcs. C.C.A.1, 1939. 10E F.2d 34?. See atsr,
llotton Oil Trans.fcr Corp. t. Thc Dynantic. C.C..4..?.
19.1i, 123 F.2d 999: Cortrr Coal Co. t'. Lit:. C.C.A 4. t9l.l
140 F.2d 934; ll'oodru.ff r.. l/ciscr, C.C.-{.tit. 19.1i. ]5(l
F.2d 869; Coco Cola Co. t. Busch. Pa.lg43, ? Fed.P.ules
Sen'. 59b.2. Case 4t Oglebav, Some DevelopnrenL. in
Bankruptcl' l,au, 1944, 16 J. of Nar'l .{ss'n of Ref 6F, 69.
Findings of fact aid in the process of judgment and ir,
defining for future cases the precise limitations of the
issues and the determination thereon. Thus ther. not onlr.

aid the appellate court on revieu', Huntil: r-. Huru;t-
1943. 136 F.zd 796 7E L.S.App.D.C 66. but thel- arf ilimportant..factor in the proper application of the doctrirrii
of res judicata and estoppel t.r- judgment. Nordbve, ln,.
provement-s in Statement of Finding" of Fact ,na Con.iu.
sions of l,au, 1 F.R D. 25,2G21 . l)iiled Srotc.s v. por.
ness. C.C.A.2. 1942. 125 F.2d 92i. certiorari denied 62 S.ii
1293, 316 l-.S. 69{, 86 L.Ed. ti6{ These findings shop-11
represent the judge's ou'n determination and not the longl
often argumentative starcmenlc of successf ul counsel.
Ltnitcd Slatrc v. Forness, supra: Lin ilca States v. g7o.
cent Amusttnent Co.. 1914, 19.15. 65 S.Ct. 2i4. B2B U.i
173, 8fi L.Ed. 160. Consequentlr.. ther. should be a paft of
the judge's opinion and decision. either stated theiein or
stated separatell'. Matton Oil Tronsfcr Corp v. fi,
Dy_na.nic. stpra. But the judge need onjr. make briei'
definite, pertinent findings and conclusions upon the coi_
tested matters; there is no necessitl for over-elaboration
of detail or particularization of facts. I)iiled Sloles r..
Forness. supra; Linited S/ole.s v. Crcsccttl Amttsemenl
Co.. supra. See also Petterson Lighttrage & Tou,ina

lorp r. Neu' l'ork Central r?. Co., C.C.-{.2d. i.Saz. tit:
f,Z! S,S!r Br-ou.n Papcr tlill Co.. lnc. t. Iru.irr, C.C.Ai.
1913. 134 F.2d 33?; Allen Bradlcy Co t. Local Llnion
.\b. "r. L B. E. U'.. C.C.A.2. 191.1. 145 F.2d 215. reyersedon
other grounds 65 S.Ct. 1533. 32;, I".S ?9i: l,oung t..
Muryhp. Ohir' 1946. I Fed.Rules Serv. i2a.1l, Casi 2.

The last sentence of Rule 52(a) as amended u'ill remove
anl doubt that findings and conclusions are unnecessan
upon decision of a motion, particularh' one under Rule ll
or Rule 56, except as provided in amended Rule .li(b). As
s(' holding. see l"/rozra-s v. Pegser, App.L).C.lgI1, 118 F.Zd
369: Sciod v. Tuvntieth Centuru-Ft* Cory.. C.C.A.3.
1913, 136 F.2d 991: Prudcntial Ins Co. o.[ Anterica v.
Goldstein. N.Y.1942. .111 F.Supp. ?6?: Sozrcrs Coal Co.,;.
L'nited States. Ohio 1942, 2 F.R.D. 532. 6 Fed.Rules Sen.
52a.i, Case l; Pen-Kcn Ail & Gos Corp. v. ll'ar.field
\-atura! Ga:s Co., Xv.1942. 2 F.R.D. 35i,. 5 Fed.Rules
Sen. 52a.1. Case 3; also Commentar\., \ecessitJ' of Find-
ings of Fact, 19{i, 4 Fed.Rules Sen'. 9J6.

I963 AME\D]\IENT
This amendment conforms to the amendment of Rule 58.

See the Adrison' Committee's Note tr, Rult, 5E. as amend-
ed.

I9E3 AIIIEND]IIE\-T
Rule 52ta) has l,een amended to rer.ise it^c penultimatr

sentence tr, provide explicitll that th€ drsrricr judgt, mal.
make the findings of fact and conclusions of lau required
in nonjur.r' cases orallr. Nothing in the prior text of the
rule foririds this practice. ri'hich is widelr. utilized bl
distriet judges. See Christenserr. :{ .l/orlcs/' Proltosal .fir
Inncosurablr lniprotcntcn!. 6l A.B..A.J. 6g:J (lg?8t The
ol,jective is to lighten the burden on th€ rria] court in
preparing findings in nonjurr cases. In addition. the
amendment should reduce the nunrber of published district
court opinions that emtrraee writtrn findings.

I985 AIITEND]IIENT

Rule 52ta) has been amended (1) trr avoid continued
confusion and eonflict^. among the circuil. as ttr the stan-
dard of appellate revien' of findings of faer br. the court,

Complete Annotation llaterials, 3€e Tiile 28 U.S.C.A.

12t



TRIALS

These considerations art'outueighed bl the pubhc interest
in the stabilitr. and judrcrrr) econ()mt that would tre promot-
ed b1' recogniz-irrg rhal the trial c()urt. n(,1 the appellate
tribunal. should in tirt frnder of tht faet^'. To permit
courL. of afrl'ea]( tt, shart' mor('activell in the fact-frnding
function would tend to undermine the legitinracl of the
district courL. in tht eles of litigants. multip)i appeals b1'

encouraging aplrellatr' retrral of some factua) issues' and
needlessll reallocalt' judicia) authorit\'.

Rule 53. lltasters
(a) Appointment and Compensation. The court

in u'hich an\- action is pending ma1' appoint a special
master therein. As used in these rules the word
"master" includes a referee. an audiLor, an examin-
er, and an assessor. Thc compensation to be al-

lou'ed to a master shall he fixed b1' the court. and

shall be ehargc.d upon ,such of the parties or paid
out of anl fund or subject matter of the action.
which is in the custodl and contro] of the court as

the court ma1' direct: provided that this prolision
for compensiitit,rr shall not aplrlv u'hen a United
States magislra'rt is designated to serve as a master
pursuant to Title 21, 1-.S.C. S 636(hX2). The master
shall not retain his rel)ort as securit]' for his com-
pensation: but tr.hen the partl' ordered to pa1' the
iompensation allou'ed b1' the court does not pa1'. it
aftei notice and u'ithin the time prescriired br the
court, the master is entitled to a writ of execution
against the delinquent part\'.

(b) Reference. -{ referenct' to a master shall be

the excepti<,lr an.l not the rule. In actions to be

tried br-a jurr, a referetrce shall be made onlv u'hen
the issues' aie con,lrlicated. in actions ttr be tried
u'ithout a jurr'. sale in matters of account and of
difficult conrl)utati()lt of dantages, a reference shall
be made onlt: u1,r,t, a shou'ing that sonte exceptional
condition require. it. t'1ron the consent of the par'
ties. a nragtstrait mai lte designated to serre as a

speeial nraster u'irhoul regard to the provisions of
this subdir-rsi,ir,

(c) Po*ers. Tirt ordt'r of reference to the mas-

ter maJ' sl,ecifr' or lttt,il his lrouers arrd nlal' direct
hinr to reliort 6;li glrr,tr I)articu)ar issues or to do or
perform particuiar acls or to receive and reltort
evidence bnll' and n-,ar fix the time and place for
beginning and clt,sing the hearings and for the
filing of ihe ma.t"r'. re1)()rt. Suirject tc, the specifi'
cations and lin-ritariol): stated in the order. the mas-

ter has and shz,ll er.t'rcist' the pou'er to regulate all
proceedings in everl he'aring before him and tt, do

all act^c and take all nreasures neeessar)' or proper
for the efficient perforntance of his duties under the
order. He mL'r' requirt the produetion before him
of evidence upon all malters embraced in the refer-
ence. including the production of all books. papers'
vouchers. dc,cunrt'nt . and writings applicatrle there-

Rule 53

;, Huruit: v. Ilurnr.
r C. 66. but thel- aa'1,

l[il:l'"'i[rlT.h
ng-s ol fact and Cal.g

I nrled ,\roles v Fo'.
:€rtrorarr denled 62 S G

These findings shsri
natton and not the lou
of successful counrj
t l'l:8,t'#il,tt

thel should 1", pr,ii
erther .stated thereirr q,
I rans_ter 

. L orp. \. 7lr
need onlv make br;.1

rnclusrons upon the coo
sitl' for over-elaborar^
acrs. [,riiled Stoks r
. Cre-ccent Antusemi
Lightcray & Touitc

^o., C.C.A.2d. tSaZ, ti
. Inc. t. /ru'iri, C.C.41
'cy Co. r'. Locai lt6s1
45 F.2d 215. reversed 6
15 L.S 79?; lbun-q r.r Sen'. 52a.ll. Case l
as amended will remmr
lusions are unnecessan
larll one under Rule 1i
rmended Ruie 1l(b), Ar
App.lt.C.l9{1. 118 P-a

rry-Fot Cory.. C.C.A!
ln-s Co. o.f Anterica r
6?: Sonzcrs Coa/ Co. r
). 532. 6 Fed.Rules Sen
Gas Corp. t. V'ar.field
.R.tt. 351. 5 Fed.Rub
rtar1 . Necessitl of Fir$
en'. 936.

IENT
: arnendment of Rule 5t
te 1(, Rule 5E. as amerd

IENT
r' re\.is(, iUs penultimat
t the drstrict judge mr1

clusions of lau requircd
in the prior text of tL

r is u'idell utilized bg

A lloticst Prttposol lo
-.t.8..4.J 69il ti9?Er. Th
[n on thr' trial coun i
cases. ln addition. tir
ntrer of published distril
k n findings.

)TENT

I (l) kr avoid continuei-
e circuiLs as to the ster'
ngs of facr b)' the couG

#srff :U;i+;1,,',;1itil"H[Tl$g
ffi'';i {i l,-lfi :l','d; :#t' ilfilJf " 

o r t n d i s P t t c d

'S',::,r:."r""11","f 
"l?':"'fl ;0""'l#Iff J"i.;ii

4 t- ::':;; *itness' credibilitr', there is n() re?1son to

fft l:iiiTt';j"r,il:ft;i:liiifl"x"#lT$j

a.$*ffiffiff
r-i*:i it *; 

T:i'i'iii f ilf f#,r J!? ;';i,,,

i.'" i Olon,, Co..60J F.2d ?li, ?5S t2d Cir l9?1lt: Jotrr

?i,,i,p'in Co- t l rrilr'd Slolc's' l?; F 2d 16{ 1G? (;th

(< l9l'ir--r 
u,,r.t ET('ulr has adolilsi the i'ier'r thai the "clearll-

-t-*,u.'t rule applies in all nonjurl cases even v-hen

i-"r,f- ar" ba.ed solell on dc'cumentarl evidence or on

J1'r^p'n.". frtrn, undisJruted facr-s' See' r'9 lla'ruell t'
;;;.' 6?3 F.zd i031. 103[ tgth Cir'), cot. doiicd' 159

I. q;i, t19r.lt. ['rrilr'd S/orcs t. Tcrus Educalion 'lgcn'
^- s:: F:td 50{, 50G-{? (5th Cir.19E1). ccrl. dcttied. 1;1

:': 
- 
itr,, rlgsJt, Corislruclrtrc lllo:o. Inc t Bortct' dc

ft,.., 6lC F.2d 5?3.5?6 (ist Cir.19[litt: /ri rr Sicrra
lqdtnt ('rrrp.. 1E2 F.2d 333, 33; (1Oth Cir'19?llt' Co'sr r"

n *i ttt. 4;i, F.2d 13(|0. t30G-0; tlt.C.Cir.19?:lt

t}l. commentators alst' disagree as tt' tht prol'er int€r'

Fur:I,r, of thc Rult. Conipart \\'righr Tht ltoubl.fu!
(-"".-.r,.. o.t' Appcllatt Courts' '{1 l\tinn.L.Rer" ?51

i6+it, rlgiit (langu:rge and intent of llult sup]rrt vie\'
u.' "clr:,rh erroneous" tesl shoulC app)1 t<' all forms of
rtrrn.r ;. ond I C. \\'rrghl & A. Milier. Fiocr,:rJ Praciit'r
tti Proccdurt'. Cili/ s^ -'58i. aI ?1(r (19;1r (language of
u, P.ui, ts clear). u'ilh i:A J. It{oort. Fcdcrai Prac!ict
'*,'i 2iii;-SS (2d ed. lgclr (Rule as uritterr suplrcrt^c

:'.r-t'' 
revies of findings ltased on rrolr Cenl6'anor testi'

Tt' suprt'mt- Cc,urt has not clear)1 rt'solled tht issue.
!* 8r,sr ('orp. t. Consumcrs l'niori o-[ ['rrilcd S/o1cs.
/r' 

- 
t'.S 

-. 
10{ S.Ct. l9{fi. 19;-rt (l9rli. Pirllnrari

Itcricro r. Su'jrr1. .tir(i L-.S. 273. 2[l::; (1912r. l'nitcd
-\rcrc. r. Gcntral .llotors Corp.. 3t.1 L.S. 12i. 111 n. 16
rigl, {iril.d Slorrs r'. I'rrilrd Slolcs Gypstrr, Co..3lJli
t : &..i 39t-96 (1916).

Tlx pnnciprrl argun)enl advanced ir, favor of a more
*rrci'rng a1,1rellatc. re'r'ieu of findings hl tht drsirict court
blld soielr on documenuirl evidence is that rht rationale
d ltuk 52rardoes not appll: r.r'hen the findrngs d(' no'L rest
I ur trial court's assessment of credibiliti of the u it-
:rrcs but on an evaluation of documenta4' prooi and the
irrrng of inferences from it. thus eliminating the need
lr enr special deference to the trial cour,.'s findings.

Complete Annotation lateriala, ree Title 28 U.S.C.A.

129



TUTES
trANDARD
OVIDING
E Uxl nsg

s3
s4
s5

.,CLEARLY ERRONEOUS'' RULE
72LEd Zt 8W

II. GsNsnrl CoxsrounATroNs

Broad application of rule to all categories of factual findings
Rule not applicable to conclusions of lan'
Issues of intent

III. AppuceBrt.rr!' or Rur.r ro Issup-s rx Prnrrculen Ceses

$ 6. Antitrust:
[a] Issues held to be factual
ft] Issues held not to be factual
[c] Issues held to be mixed questions of fact and law

$ 7. Patents
$ 8. Job discrimination
$ 9. Elections
$ 10. Trademarks
$ 11. School desegregation
$ 12 Ta:i
$ 13. Admiralty

II\iDEX
Adrnrraltl cases. $ 13
A6darit-. of n'irnesses. antitrusi actions
Al) categories of factual findings. broad

of.$9
Broad applicatron of rule, generallr. $ 3
Charter part1 . admiraltl suit. $ 1.i
Commission rate fixing b1' brokers, $ Qa]
Conclusions of las'. apphcabilitl. general)1

s4
C.onclusivenes" of fact finding. $ 4
Crnspirac.v cases. $ 6
Countl commis,sioners, discriminaton elel

tioll s1-stem. $ 9
De6nrtions, $ 4
De:nisa chart-er pan.r'. admiraltl actior, rn

vo)r'ing. $ l3
Deposltrons rrr antitrust action. $ 6itr'
Desegregatror, case.. $ 11
Drscrirnrnatron $$ 6 9. tl
Distrngurshing conclusions of lau $ 4
Ikt'umentan evidence. reliancr or,. ! 6io. ci
Drugcr,s'* ani pha:'macls'*. $S 6 b,. 1(,
Electron ce-ses. $ 9
Eiectnc ueldrng process patenr. $ ?

Ernplovmenr dlsa:'lrninatron ca-se: $ [.
Exciusron of cert-ain catesorre: oi facrua] 6no

rngs, $ 3
General con-siderations. SS &5
Generic drugs drspenseC uncier trademarl:

s lr'
Grfl. specific transfer as. S 12
G1'psurn board, price fuiing a. tc. $ 6jc'
Inferences fron, undupurcc ba-<i.1 fs6E $ 3
I.t€nl liiue-<. gene:-alir'. $ 5

Internal Revenue Code prorisions a-. to gtft^.
s12

Introducrion. ! I

Longshoreman's admrraltl- suir, $ l3
Medical societ.r. monopol.r' a-< trr prepard medi.

cal care. g 6'aj
IUislateirng of producrs. $ l0
Mixed ques'.icns of fact and lan. antitrusl

ca-ses. $ Qc-
Monopr'lres anC restrarnts of trade. $ 6
Narratrvr of tesirrr,on.r' in earher criminal

pri,ceeiirng. $ 61,i
"Paprr case' antirrusl action. $ 6ib;
Particu)ar ca-.e. $S 6 er seq
Paren: ca-.es. S ?

Phsl-r,a:rs'.s anC pharmaceurtcai p:.oducts.
gi 6 r,- l(,

Phi'sil'rans and surgecns. monopr)r a-( t pr€
paic medrce.: care . $ 6.a'

Prelin::nar. ma:rcrs $$ 1.2
Preparc n.reirce.l care. rr,onopo)r a. ta. ! 6.a,
Prire fix,:-ig aclrons. S 6-L. cr
Ra:;a: de:e;rega:ro:., oI s:ho,r) $ I )
Rerl es'.a'.r bruie:-s. corin-:rss)oa ratF 6xinE

b: ! 6,a'
Relatei n:atrers ( lib-
Schco. desegregatron cases. $ 1l
Scopt o: arrnoutlon. S l;a
Seas.o:"i):ness of vessel. acirr.irali.r' suir 8-. to.

s ]s
Senloritr svslelrr. dscrr:ninarcn nature of. $ E
"Subsrorar"r " facrual findings. $$ 3. 6
Sur:-,ma.-r. $ 2
Tar ca-se. S 12

s 63i
applr-

cation to. S 3 Job di.s:rrmtnatron cases. $ E
Antitrust m-ses, S 6 l,abelirrg ol generic drugs under trademar|:.,
At-large election 6-vst€m. drscriminatorl effecr $ 1(,

Jur

tion,

vle$'

89r



$ ltal PULLMANSTANDARD v SWINT
Reported p 66, mpra

Taxi.ab sale6. monopol.r. a. to. $ ea]
Text of Bule 52ar. g l{cl
Trademark cases. S l0

"Ultimatr" factua! 6ndrngs. tS 3. g
Undisputed basic fact:. inferences from
llelding proces-G. patent for. $ ?

S3

I. Preliminary. Eatt€r.6

$ l. lntroduetion

[a] Scope
ThLc annotation collecls and analvzes

cases in *.hich the UniteC States 
-Su_

preme Court ha_. discussed what consti-
tutes a factual issue for purposes of the'clearll' erroneou-c" 6ta;da;d of nui"
52r.a' of the Federal Rules of Cir-il proce-
d.ure.t providing that findings of fact
shall not be set aside unler. ci-eari, ..io
neous.

[b] Related Eatters
-Application of "clearl1. erroneous" testof Rule 52tar of Federal Rules of Civii

Procedure ro rrial court's findiags of i..i
based on dcrumenran. er.idence]ll AiR
FeC 212

.Proprietl.and efect of trial court,s
adoption of fndirrgs prepared U. p."i."it_
rng parl_\ 54 ALRBd 866

Power of trial cou!-t. on remand for
further proceedings. to change prior faci
nndlngs a-s to matter not passed upon b.r
appellate coun. rr.ithout receiving fui-
ther evidence l9 ALR3d S02.

o

- Nott. Federal Ruie of Ciril procedure
52 a, and the Sope of appeltate iaci
Revieu' Ha-. Application oi'the Cl"a;i;
Erroneous Rute Beer, Cleari.r fr.o.oou.i
52 St. Joh-n's L Rer 6E (19?i;

_ !\angle. The Er.er \{'rdering Scr,pr of
Fact Rer-ieu ir, Fecier a] App=lLrr d";
;ls itrl^"!]e1:i.r f,1y.:y1sou, nui.. A",n;
Avorded? 59 \{ ash Lr l-e 40v i1931 r

[c; Text of FRCP 52ra,
The texr of FRCp 53,a, is a_. frrilou,s

Rule 52. Findings bt,the Court(a Efleci In all acrions trrei uporj the
faet.. n-ithout a 3ur.r or s.ith ,n 

"Crori,

jury, the courl shall find the facts soe.ciall.r and st^atf, 6eparatcl.r. it-. 
";r;[-sions of lag. thereon. .na juag."ni-si"if

be entered pursuanr t.o Rule 55, il;;granting or refusing inrerlocutorS.- il_junctions the court it.tt ,i.it.ili. "",forth the-frllrngs of fact 
"na "on.tu-"lo_-.r.of lau which constitute the Cr";rd. ;;its action. Requesrs for findinis .." nJi

Decessan for purprnes of rer.ieu fislt-
mgE o, fact shall nor be set asjde unless
clearly erroneous, and due ."g"ra-r-;;i
be given to the opportunitl. oi tfr" tri"i
nurr to jufue of the credibilit.v of tlieq.itnesses. The indings of , -rst..,-tothe extent that the court adopts themi
shall be considered a-_c the 6ndins. ;i-i;;
courl. If an opinion or memorandurr. of
decrslon is 6led. ir s.ill be sufficienr if thefindings of facr and conclusio". oi t"r^
appear therein Frndrngs of fact and con-
clusions of lau. are unnecessary on deci.
sions of motions under Rule fi o. SO-o,
an1' other motion except as provided in
Rule 41(b;

$ 2. Summarl-
FRCP 52,ar prorides that in all action_q

trieg upon the facl. r.ithout , ;u - ois'ith an adr.rson ;ur-r. the 
"ora -u.ihnd 

. 
rhe facx speciallr ang starr sepa.

ratel-r its conclusions of iau thereon.
The rule .furrher prcr.rde.. thar findinfol facr shali no: b{ se: a-.idr unl&
clearl.r erronecus and tiraf ar* ."g".a
rnus: bx. giver, t<, the opponunir.r oi the
trral coun k, judg( the creciibilirj of thewitrres-ies: Tire Supreme Cbun ha-.
noted its reluctance tr, d6turO findrngs oi
fact concurred in b.i t*,i; jower 

"orr1..-i 

-

Accordrng to the Supreme C.ourl. hou.-
ever. &_ findrng rs "cieari.r erroneous.
uncier FRCP E2ta, s.hen alihough there
L. evidence to Euppon it. the revieuing
court on the entire evrcience i-. lefr *.iti

l. Rule 52,a:. the full
appear-. ir, $ l1c, rnfra.
referred to a-. FRCp 52.a,

2. For a general dlscussion of FRCp

892

i?__*" Federal Proceciure L Ed. Trial
$$ 77:2:?5 et seq

^.3, -Rogers v l,odgt (198: US 73 L Ed
?d_loJ: 102 S (\'3212 reb. den ,t:S ?aLil 2d 160, 103 s cr 195

text oI which
L. hereinafrer



a.v
..CLEARLY ERRONEOUS" RULE

72LEd ztJ 89o
$3

0!3.8

't!* eo'' I s

d the facts spe-
It€ly iG conclu_
I judgment shall
Rule 58: and ii
nterlocuton. in-rll similarl-\. set
and conclusions
the grounds of

$ndrngs ane not
bf rerieu. Find.
set aside unless
lue reg:ard shall
nit-r' of the trial
'edibilit.r of the
of a master, to
rr adopts them,
e findings of the
nemorandum of
suftcient if the

clusions of latr.
of fact and con-
cessary on deci-
;ule 12 or 56 or
s_. pror"ided in

at in all acrion-s
hout a jury or
.he court must
rni srate sepa-
I ian thereon
s thal findrngs
I aside unless
ra: due regari
onunin' of the
edibilit.r' of the
le Court ha_.
iurb findings of
)uer courl. !
ne (bun. hc,u-
'jr e!.roneou-.'
although there
the reriesing

rce u ieft rr-ith

the definitc and 6rm conviction that a

mi.qtake has been committed.{
The Supreme Court ha-' indicated that

the "cleirly erron@lls" standard of
FRCP 52rai applies broadly to all catego
ries of factual findings and does not

mahe exceptions or purport to exclude

certain categories of factual findings
from the obligation of a C-ourt of Appeals
to accept a District C,ourt's findings un'
less clearly erroneous (S 3, infrat. The
court has held that the "clearll'errone
ous" standard of FRCP 52ra) does not
applv to conclusions of }an ($4. infrat
Ttre court has noted the "vexing nature"
of the distinction betq'een questions of
fact and questions of law, ard ha-'

pointed out that FRCP 52 does not fur-
nish particular guidance *'ith respecl to
dlqtrnguishing Iarr from fact (S4. infra'
Howel'er. the court ha-' made clear that
issues of intent will commonll' be treated
as factual issues and thus subject tc the
"clear)1' erroneous'' standard (S 5. infrai'

Particular questions have been held b1

the Supreme Court to be factua! issues

for purposes of the "clearil- eroneous"
standard of FRCP 52rar in cases involr"
ing patent-. (S ?, infrat. job discrimina-
tion (S 8. infra r, electtons (S f . infra r.

trademarks (S 10. infrai. schoo) desegre
gation {$ 11. infrai. tax (S 12. infrar. anC

admrraltv (S 13. infrar ln antitrust ca-ses.

the Supreme Court ha-' held certain u'
sues to be factual ang therefore sub-iecl

to thr' "clearll errorieous" srandard of
FRCP 52ra tS6.aj infra:. n'hile in somt
antitrusr cases cenain is-sues have beer,

heid b1, th€ cour'. tr' be not factual ald
therefore not subjell tc th€ "ciear'i.r' errc'
neous standarrj r! 6.o, infra . Some rs'

sues in antitrusi lirrgalion havt b,t=;'

heii b1' the Supreme C,oun lo t* mhec
ques:rnlr-. oi fact and iav 6nlr pa:-.;r

sub.lect to the "clearly erroneotlq
dard ($ Qcl. infra)

Il. Generd eonsiderations

$ 3. Broad application of rule to all
categories of faetual findings

The Supreme Crurt held or recognized
in the follou'ing cases that the "clear)1'

erroneous" standard of FRCP 52ar aP
plies broadl-r to all categories of factual
findings

Noting that FRCP 52 broadll' requires
that findings of fact not b€ set aside
unless clear)y erroneous, the court in
Pullman-standard, Dir' of Pullman. Inc
v Su'int (1982i 456 US 273. 72 L A %
66. 102 S Ct 1761, 2E BNA FEP Cas

1073. 28 CCH EPD [ 32619, 33 FR Sen
2d 1501. declared that the rule does not
make exceptions or purPort to exclude
certain categorres of factual 6ndings
fror; the obhgation of a Court of Appeals
tc accept a Disrrict Court's findings un-
les. clearll erroneous The courr added

tha: FRCP 52 rioes not divide facts into
categories, and that in particular. the
Rule <ioes not divide findings of fact into
those that deal u'ith "ultimate" facl'
and those that deal n'rth "subsidiary"
facL..

ln Rogers r lodge (1962. US' 73 L Ed

2d 1012 1C2 S C\ 3272. reh den (-S 74

L &i 2d 160. 103 S Ch f96' the courl
declareC that it-c de:ision in Pullman-
Sunoard. Dir. of Pullman. Inc. l' Su'int
rlgS- 45€'US 2?3. ?2 L &i 2d 66. 102 S

Ci tiri. 2S B\.{ FEP Ca-' t0;3. 2E CCH
EPIr '32619. 33 FR Sen 2c 1501. em'
phas;zes the riefererrce FRCP 5! requires
ievier-ing courr to Else e trial court's
6ni:ngs of faci FRCP 52, the coun
staiei- broad)'r requires that 6nding' oI

fa:l noi bt se: aside unless clearll e!'ro

:. L Ei. Trial

LS ?IJ L Ed
i. de: ,US 74

4. trniteC S:aies r Llnited Srarc= Gv;'
surr, Co ,1946 33:i U-s 36i 9t L k ;4('
6l S ft 525. 76 trSPQ 43a. rei, der. 33,1'

us 869 9: L EC 114;. 65 S G 76!.
Uniteri Srates v Oregor Slare lUedrcal
&r 11952, 343 US 32€ 96i L Ed 97e. i!
S G 69C: }{c^Alirster v UnrieC Siaies
(19:!i 34S US 19.9!'L Ec 21. ?5 S ft 6

modif den 34S US 951.99 L EC ;4E 75 S

Cr 441 . C-ommissione:' r' Dubersieir.
(1960 363 US 2;S.4 L Ei 2c I:iE.6i'S
ft 1190. 6G2 USTC I 9515. Guzuia:: r

Prci,;ri;r, '196:1 369 US 69S. 6 L Ed %
2iri tl S ft 109:. tlnrred Srsr-e= r'Singe:
lrlis (< ,196i. 3?4 LS 174. 10 L Ed 2C

s:a t.l, S Cr 1??3 13: LrSPQ 805 Zr;-,ith
Radrr, Co:'p l Hazeltlne Researci.. Inc
,196! 395-LlS 100. 23 L Ed 2d 129. 89 S

C'i 1561. 161 USPQ 5;i. 1969 CCH Trade
Cas:. ' ?2Eir.r. lnu'oo<i l,aboratorie=' lnc
v lle. Laboralorre:. In: (l98i 45€ US

U4 i2 L Fi 2c 606. 1i): S C\. 216:. 211

IISPQ 1. 31 FF S,en 2i ll0l
893



$3 PULLMANSTANDARD v SI{INT

f Corrunvr: Noting that the
ecope of appellate fact rer"ieu. cpntin-
ues to rideu, one Federal District
Crcurt judge ha-s e!6srved that an
important factor underl-r.ing the ex-
pansion of appellate court power is
the avoidance of pRCp 52ta) or the
circumvention of it b_v ever<hanging
irterpretations The judge point-.-oui
that the appellate courts have failed
increasingly to accord to the trial
coqrt': fi.1ding. of faet the respect
and deference enrisioned br. the
clearll' er?oneous rule. The commen-
tator notes that although purporting
to pa-r. homage to the clearlr. 

".ronoou-" rule. appellate courls iave b+
come les-. reticent to substitute their
vien of the er"idence for that of the
trial court to "do justice." Nangle,
The Ever Widening Scope of Fact
Reriew in Federal Appeliatr Courl.
-L. the "C]earl-r Erroneou-. Rule"
Beins Avoided? ig Wash I-LI4-;09
(19E1 r

$ 4. Rule not applicable to conclu-
sions of las-

^ 
ln the frrllou-ing ca-ses. the Supreme

Uourt held or recognized tha: the"clearl-r eroneous" standard of FRCi
52a. d,ces not apph to conclusions of
lan. !'nl1a,3 Srate: r UnireC Staes Gvp
sum Co. (1946, 333 US 361 92 LFj;'aA
$|S C, 525.7G USPQ 430. reh der. 333I]." 869 93 L Ed lt4;. 66 S C\ ?8S
United States v E. I Du ponr de Nerr,.
ours & Co (t9b7, g5S LrS 586. 1 L Ed 2i105;. 77 S Ct 822: United Sta,.es v
Parke. Daris & Co ttgOCr,86: US Zg. 4 LU ZC 505 80 S Cr 503: tlnircd Star., i
Singer Irlfg Co 0963 3?4 US 171 lir La 2d 823.83 S G 17?3, 13; USpq srJi
United Sutes v General Moto.. borf
894

Deou6, and doeo not makc ",*o[T.T'[#,Lri H:, r_6 L.Ed_ 2d 4rs, 86 spurport to exclude certain categories of ct lq2lr 1966 ccH T.;" Las€s I?tzsnfactual fndioes r0 FR 
-Sen u t;i;,'ilil,i;Gffilr1,see aIEo commissioner v Duberstein Di^v of pril;;r, I;;. , s*.int (r9g2r l#oe60r 363 US 27s, 4 L H 2J 1218, 80 S u.q zze, zi I w', {a-m. roz s ct 1781. 28Ct u90, 6G2 USrc [.gbrs, where rhe ,y ^*f 

-C* -lozs,' 
?s CCH Epncourt stat€d that the "clearl1. erroneous" I g2619, sa iR sl*"za- rsoi'ir;::standard of FRCP s2ra) 6pp5gs not onr.r. Lboratories. i;.. '; Ii". Laboratoriesto a trial judge's findings of fact but abt lnc. (f982r 456 US Ui.' ZZ L Ed 26 606to factual inferences from undisputed i6Z S Ct Zt2,itl US"e r,34 FR Sen.basic facts. 2d ftgl.

_ The courl stated in pullmanStandard
Dr'. of Pullman, lnc. r Snint o96;:;
US 278, 72 L A Zd ffi, toz S Ct riir 'ii
BNA FEp Ca-. 1079, 28 CCrf 

-ilpn-

[ 32619, 83 FR Sen. 2d 1501, tf,"i fICi
* d* nor appl-r. ro conclusio", oi lr"*.lne court obsen'ed thar the Court of
Appeals, therefore, \*.as correct in savi.o
that if a District C.ourt's findings resi;;
an erroneolLs vien. of the lan., the_v must
be set aside on thar basis. Notiniti.
vexing nature of the rlistinction betn.een
question-c of fact and questions of lao.
the courr staLed thar fhCp sz ao".-"oi
furnish partrcular guidance s-ith respeit
to distinguishing lau from facr. ,"d ;h;i
the court does not know of 

""-, oti".rule or principle thar n ill ,n"rrinni.
distiaguish a factual findrng f.orn 

" t"!"iconclusion

- ln lnu.ood l,aboratories, Inc. v Ives
Iaboratories. Inc. (1982, 456 US U4, iiLil23 606, 102 S C{ 2182, Zrn USpe r,
34 FR Sen. 2d ltOl, the courr staieJ
thar if the trial courr ba-ses it^. findings
,r.poi " misuken impression of apphct.
ble legal principles. the rer.ieu,ing'"orr,
L. nol bounC b1 thr clearl_t. 

"rr-on*r.sranciarci of FRCP 52,a,.

..For a Supreme Coun opinion r,r.hich
dlxus,sed the difficult_r in drstinguishrng
queslion: ojr lact from questions of las-.
bur n.hicl. diC nor cire FRCp 52 a . see
Baumganner l Unir.ed Srarer rlgea B2;,us 665. 8t L Ed 1525. 64 S O 124r-;
nhere. ir revieu.ing a Court of Appeals.
jucigmenl affrrmrng a Drstric: Cour..
Oecre€ sei:lng aside a cenrfcatr of natu.
ra],'alior. a. haring been obuined br
frauC. the Supreme Coun declared tha:
the emphasis on the rrnporlance of ciear.
uneauivoca,. and conr-incrng proo1, or,
n'hici. to resl the canceliatior, oia cenrf,.
catt of na:uralrzztr..-rr: rr.oulci be losl rf



Ed 2d tlls, 86 S
i Cases I ?l?SO
lmanShndard,
u.lnt 0982, 456
)2 S Ct I78t, 28
7A OCH EPD

1501: Inwood
p l,aboratories.
P L &l 2d 606.
l, 34 FR Sen.

ImanStandard.
Fnt (1982r 456
2 S Ct 1781,28
,8 Oclr EPD
pl, that FRCp
fusions of lau.

..CLEABLY ERBONEOUS'' RULE
72LEd?duyJ*

the Court of
[recr in sa-ving
Fdlngs rest on

F*,-,h"r .u.,
;. Noting the
:tion between
;tions of laq..) 5, does not

^ 
nith respecr

lact. and thar
of an.r' other
ll 

- 
unerringl-r

from a legal

Inc v Ives
I US 844. 72
214 USPQ 1.
coun stated
, its findings
r of applica
le\rtng court
.\' erron€{)us

inion n'hich
stinguishing
ions of laq.
P 52rar. ser
s (1944t 322
S Cr 1240.
ol .A.ppeals'
'ict Coun'-.
ate oi natu.
rbtained b.v

:clared thai
:ce of clear.
I proof on
of a certifi.
be losr if

the ascertainment by the lower courG
whether that exacting standard of prmf
had been satis6ed on the whole record
were to be deemed I 'Tact', of the aa:ne
order as all other "fact5," not open to
review in the Supreme C,ourt. The court
stated that the recognized sc,ope of appe)-
Iatc revieq is usually di-fferentiatcd from
:elew of ordinary quetions of fact by
being called revies. of a question of la*:,
but the court added that this is often noi
an illuminating test and is never self-
executing. Reversing the Crcurt of Ap
peals' judgment, the Supreme Court
noted that the phrase "finding of fact,'
ma-v be a summary characterization of
complicated factors of varying sgni-6-
cance for judgment. and that the conclu-
siveness of a "finding of fact" depends on
the nature of the materials on r*rich the
finding is based.

f Couurr'r: One sriter has ob
sened that commentators have la-
mented the fact that there Ls no
litmus test for determining whether
a given proposition is properly a
finding of fact or a conclusion of ian
She points out that question-s of fact
are those whose reolution is based

T.rltimatell' on the application of the
(factfinding tribunal's experience
lnith the mainsprings of human con-
[duct, while lesal conclusion-. are
Ithosr which are based on applicatron
Qf a legal standard According to the
*riter. these definitions ofler suffi.
cient guidance for cases ar either
end of the spectrum, bur are of little
assistance i_n Ies,c extreme situation-s.
The q'riter states thar the dercrmi-
nation whether I questiorr is one of
fact or Lau is riral to the apphcabii-
it1 of FRCP 52iai, since the clearlr.
eroDeorr.c st^andard is expres-.!-v ap
plied onl-r' to "findrngs of facr'i The
commentator adds that as a result.
various courL. have avoideci rhe ap
plication of the rule b.r finding the
question under consideration to be
something other than one of pure
fact. Note. Federal Rule of Ciril pro
cedure 52ra, and the Scope of Appe)-
Iate Facr Rer-ierx'. Has Apptication oi
the Clearl.r' Erroneous Rule Beer

Clearll' Erroneous? 52 St. John's L
Rev 68 (t977).

! 5. Iasues of intent
the following Supreme Crcurt cases

indicate that issues of intent are com_
monl.r' treated as factual issues, which
are subject to the .'clearly 

erroneous',
staadard of FBCP 52ta). United States v
Yellow c8b co. (1949) 338 US 338. 94 L
Ed 150, 70 S Ct t?Z; United States v
Oregon Stat€ Medical Soc. (f952,943 US
326,96 L Ed 978, 22 S Ct 690; Commis_
sioner v Duberstein (f960) g65 US Z7g, 4
L Ed tut 1218, 80 S Ct rr90, 6c2 usTC
Ii95l5; Unit€d Srat€s v Singer MfC Co
(19631 374 US 174, t0 L Ed % 823; 83 S
Ct 1773, r37 USPQ 8O8; Dafion Board of
Education v Brinkman (1-g7g) 448 US
526, 6r L Ed Zi ZZA,99 S Ct 2971. reh
den 444 US 887, 62 L Ed 2d r2l, 100 S
Ct 186: PullmanSandard. Div. of pull.
man. Inc. v Srxint (1982) 456 IJS 2TB. ?2
L Ed 2d 66, r02 S Ct 1781.28 BNA FEP
Cas 1073, 28 CCH EPD I 82619, Bg FR
Sen' 2d 1501; lnwood l,aboratories. Inc
v Ives l,aboratories, Inc. (19821 456 US
U4.72 L A % 606, r02 S Ct 2182. 214
USPQ l,34 FR Sen Zl lt0l; Rogers r.
Lodge (1982. US) 23 L A 2n 1012.102 S
G. 3272. reh den fliSr ?4 L Ed % f60.
103 S Ct 19E

Holdrng thar under 70&h) of Title \rII
2f the Ciril Rrghr^. Act of 1964 (42 USC^S
($ 200t)e-2'hli dicsriminsb* intent as to
lF Eeruonr.\ 6.!-ELem is a findrng of facr
fubjecr to the "ciearl-r. erroneorLc' 6la.n.
[dani of FRCP 52ra;. the coun in pul].
\sn$tandsrd. Drr. of Pul]man. lnc r.
Suint (1982, 456 US 279,72 L Ed 2d 66
102 S C\ 176t.28 B\*A FEP Ca-. 1075. 25
CfH EPD | 32619.33 FR Sen 2t t5i)l.
Etated that treating issues of jrtent a_.
factual matrers for the tner of fam is
commonplace.

ln Rogers v lrcdge 0981. US: 7A L U
2d 1012. i02 S C\ 3272^ reh der, (IJS, 24
L U 2d 160. 103 S Cr 198, the courr
Etat€d thar ir had noted in puliman-
Starrdard. Div of Pullman. Inc. v Sg-int
(1982,456 US 273. 72 L U 2d 66 102 S
Ct 17E1, 25 BNA FEP Ca-. l0?3, 25 CCH
EPD I 32619. 33 FR Sen 2d 15O1. tha:
tssues of intent are commonlv trealec a-
fa:tual rnatt€rs for purposs ol Ll.
cleer').r' erroneous sts.ndard of FRCI, i_

8.:.



l6tal PULLMANSTEfoEND V SWINT
Reportcd p 66, aupra

t

l

IfI. Applicability of nrle to iarues iD
particular cases

$ 6. Antitrust

[a] Iesues held to be factual
ln the follon'ing antitrust cases, the

Supreme Court held that particular
questions a-s to intent or motjve or as to
the exislense of a conspiracy were fac-
tual issugs, and that the "clearlv er?one.
ous" standard of FRCP S?at *,as there.
fore applicable.

The "clearly erroneous" rule of FRCp
52(a) was applied in an antitrust case in
United States v Yellos' Cab Co. (1949)
338 US 338, 94 L Ed 150, ?0 S Ct r77,
where the government alleged that the
defendants violated $g 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act (15 USCS SS l, 2r |y sen-
spiring to restrain and monopolize the
sale of taxicabs b-v control of the princi-
pal companies operating them in four
cities. The Dlstrict C,ourt found that the
government, at the trial. had failed on
all the evidence to prove ik case. Affirm-
ing the Dstrict Court's judgment, the
Supreme Court declared that tndings as
to the design, motive, and intent *ith
which men act depend peculiarll- upon
the credit given to s-itnesses brl those
*'ho see and hear them. Noting that
FRCP 52 applies to appeals br th1 gov-
ernment as well a-s to those bv other
litigants, the court pointed out that
there is no exception which permil< the
government. even in an Antitrust ca-se, to
come to the Supreme Court for nhat
rirtuall-r- amounts to a trial de novc, or.r
the record of such findings a-. inrcnt.
motive. and design

ln UniteC S.;rres v National Asso oI
Real Estate Boards (1950' B3-o US 4gS. 94
L Ed 100?. ?r) S C:r ?11. a cir-il actjon
b-rought b.r' the Llrrited States alieging
that mernbers of the \\ashington ieai
Esrate Board combirred and conspired to
fui the commission rates for their se;,-
vices s'hen acring a-s brokers in rhe sale,
exchange. leasr. and management of real
propert) in the Di-strict oI Columbia ir:
r-iolation of g 3 of the Sherrrran Acr rl5
tisq. g 3;. the Supreme Coun appiieci
the FRCP 52,a, "clearl)' erroneoust 

-rule

to the Di.crrrct Courl'F finding that rqo oi
the deienianrs did nor conspire n,irh the
\l-a-shingior., boarC ro fr and prescr.iix

896

the raLes of commission to be charged bv
the members of r"he board. Am.miig-t[-.
Distnct Courr's jufument as to thd twi
defendants, but other*ise r"r""rirrg iti
District Cogrtls judgment, the Sup?emi
C,ourt stated that it was Dot 

"nougi., 
tt;iit might give the facLs anothe. 

"*tir.-tion, resolve the ambiguities differenti,
and find a more sinister cast to actions
which the District C,ourt apparentlv
deemed innocent. The Suprem-" C"rn
noted that it was not given those choices,
because its mandate was no.r to set asid-e
fiadingE of fact unl* ',clearly 

"r"on*ous."
The "clearly erroneous" rule of FRCp

52,at Ea-c held applicable in United
States v Oregon State Medical Soc.
(1952) 343 US 326, 96 L Ed 9?8. 72 S Ct
690, an appeal by the United States fro;
dismissal b-v the District Caurt of its
complaint seekmg an injunction to pre-
vent and restrain violations of $$ i and 2
of the Sherman Act (15 USLS gg 1, 2r
The rrial judge found that thJ-defen-
dants (a state medical societl., eight
count_\' medical societies, a corporatiorr
engaged in the sale of prepaid medical
care. and eight doctorsr djd not conspire
to restrain or attempt to monopohze
prepaid medical care ir Oregon in the
period 1936-1941. and thar even if such
conspiracl. during that time wa-q proved
it wa-. abandoned in 1g4l The trial
judge also found that suppll.ing prepaid
medical care u'jthin Oregon bv doctor-
sponsored organizations did noi consij-
tut€ trade or commerce s'ithin the
meaning of the Sherman Act Concluci,
ing that the Drstricl Court's 6ndings
\^'ere not clea:'ir. erroneous. and accor.d-
ing].v afirrr,ing the DLsrricr Coun's jucig-
ment. the Supreme Court declared thal
there is no ca,s€ more appropriate for
adherence to the "clearl.r' erroneous''
ruie of FRCP 52,a' than one in s-hich
the complainlng part-r' creates I va-si
recorci of cumulative eridence a-. ro long-
pa-eI transactions. motires. and purposes.
the eflect of s'hich dep,ends largel-r. upon
creciibrlrtr of s-itnesses

[b] Issues held not to be factual
lr. the follourng antttrust cases. the

Suprer:ie Coun heiC that parrrcular
oues:t::r: a_. ut th€ proper legal standarc



..CLEARLY ERRONEOUS'' RULE
72LEd2/d 8X

0 6tbl

o be charged br*
I Affirming the
as to thae two

e reversing the
t, the Supreme
oot enough that
rother custruc.
ities differently,
cast to actions

urt apparentl-v
Supreme Caurt
ln those choices.
not to set aside

"clearly errone

i" rule of FRCP
rble in United
: Medical Soc
Ed 976, ?2 S Cr
rited States from
ct Court of ir-.
rjunction to pr€r.

on-. of SS I and 2
r usc-s ss 1. 2,
that the defen-
I societ-r. eight
s. a corPoration
prepaid medical
did not conspire
. to monopohze
: Oregon in the
hat esen if such
iime \A,a-. prOved
1941 The trial
upplting prepaid
regon bl doctor-

did not consli-
rce n'rthin the
.r, Acr.. Conclud-
Cour.'s finding.

rcus. ani accorci-
r:ct Court s -iucig'
:rl deciared tha'l

appropriate for
-,arll errone$us"
tn one in u'hicl:

creates a va-q1

ridenct a-. 1q' long-
'es. and purl.xEes
'nds largell uPor,

ual
ca-ses. the
pa-.iicut a:
Is',a::c;:c

1e fact
lt rus:
tha:

[: ieia

to be applied in the cares were Dot fac-

iiJ ffi;--a tu"t accordrngll' the

[Ltlt 
-;;eous" ttandard of FRCP

52ai *la-c not aPPlicable'"; i;t"d Siates ' E' I' Du Port d-e

N;.;; & co-ttssz, 353 us 586' I L

il 2dlo57, 7? s ct 872, an aPPeal from

r pitUa Crcurt judgment dismrsslng tne

;,;;;;;",'' -""ir 
on- tiflf fi #t !"J,6r $ z or the CIaYton I

Lir,i"* from ihe Purchase b;- the de

i;;;;"";;p*r oi a 2$Percent stock

interest in another corPoratton' llt iY:
Dreme Court, reversing the l]Lstrlcr

A;;. i"ag!nt, Etsted that since there

;;';; lidGoni disPute as tP th: ba:ic

frcts pertit ent to the Distriet Lburt F

l*i"i.", the Supreme Courl n'a-c n-o-t

ilnit"t,J "lth 
ihe provisio.n of fRCf

52ai that findrngs of faet shall not be Eer

IIia" ""ro. 
cle-arly erron@us At issue

il-.if,.- O"trict Court's conclusion that
gil""* of nonrestraint negated an1

Iutt"rUl. ProbabilitS' of such a Je

"ili", tt tt* ti-" of the suit The Su-

;;;; Court deciared that r*hile it q'a-'

fi;';il;;ooi of a mere Possibilitl of a

"*fr;Uit.a 
restraint or tendencl' to mcL

'"o*ft nill not estabhsh th-e staturcr)

ilrriiu-"nt that the eflect of an acqusr'

lion "-rt be" such restraint or l3n-
i"".r',*,f,i basic facts found b1' the Dis-

t.r.i-C""t demonstrated the error of its

conclusion--The "clear)l erroneous'' standard of

fnCp SZ",sas heid to have no applica-

llon to the ca-se before the court ln
ii;;;J solo ' Parke' Davis & 

-Co
[boc. se2 ui zg. n L Ed 2d 505' 80 s cI

ios-. *h".. the go'ernmenl sought an

iii-"".,ion unriet 
-.( 

4 of the Sherman Acr

,il USCS $ 4 agarnsr the defenciant on a

-Llir,r-t'*lh,.t allegei tha: the defen

i-rfi-.""=pit"a and it'mbinec tr' vt-ola

f"; ";"SiT 'oc t' 
ol the Ac: 15 trilF

S.q i. :j ."'i'ili retail and r+hoiesa)e drug'
gist*. rn t\A(' cllles ro maintarr tht u'hole

il;;i reu:l Prrces of the defendant s

ilrr.*r."oi.a) producrt Tire DLcrrict

il;;';;;**ci the comPlarn: on lbt
J""ra-,n"t upon the facL' an<i the lau

ib* go.'"rnn",enl had nn' slrru'r' I rigni

t, rJti"t Reversing thi' Drsrrict Court's

iudrrnent and rernandtng rhe ca-\( to th'
br.-,rra, Coun rvlth ci:recttons t{' enl€I

* ,pp.opttaie .iuCgme;: en'tol:li::; tne

defendant from further violations of the

Sherman Ast unla' the oomPany

Ii*G-t" submit evidence in defenr
LJ-i"frt"a the government's right to

i"iut "ti"" 
relief establuhed b-v !h: T*.

;t.';;; 
-Srpt"." 

Court concluded that

inCp SZ had no application to the in'
;t""i ** because the District Court

;;t""d its ultinate finding that the

["i""a"n, did not violate the Sherman-

Act on an erroneous interpretation of

iil" "*"a"td 
to be applied The coun

Btat€d thst because of the nature ot tne

ixtii.i-co"rt'E error the Supreme Court

i*. ie.'l""i.g a question of lag" narnely'

*t-"tf*i-tf,""pl"itict Court applied the

;il;- tt na.ta to essentialll' undis'

outed facts' rn-u"it a States t General Motors

c"i, rriilu, 384 us 12?. 16 L Ed 2d 415'

86'5 Ct-1321' 1966 CCH Trade C'ases

iiriso ro FR Sen zl 1245' a civil

rJon bro,rght b1' the Unit'ed States to

;;j;i; th" d"efendant^' from particiry:Tg
i"" "" alleged conspiracy .to -restrarn
tr"a" ," vioiation of S I of the -Sherman
Act (15 USC-q S lt. the coun held tnal

li" "i,irnr," 
Jonclusion b1' the trial

iudee that the defendants' conduct d)o
-not'constitute a combination or consPlr'

".t 
i" orotrtion of the Sherman Act wa-'

""i 
to U" shielded b1' the "clearll'errone

;;." ;i "-u"ai"a'in 
FRCP 52rar The

*rtt not"a that the question in the.case

s'a-. not one of "fact'" but consrs.teo

"r?t "t "r 
t}re tegtt standard required to

t'"rrf i"a , the undisput'ed facts of the

case"The court adde<i that the tnat

coun'F custornar] opportunitl to er-alu

att the <iemeanor and thus the creolDrl-

itt oi th" u-itnesses' n'hicn is the ralic'

,it. 
'u"rrira 

FRCP 52 a plg)'* onll a

restrrc',ed role in thr ca-se . nhlch' acco!"o'

ing to th" court. rl'a-' essentialll a ''PaPer

ca-.e' The court pointei out that the

[t aii 
-not 

unfo)d b1 the tes:imon'r of

fi.':;:;;;s''"=. anc ihat of the 3E rmt'

,,-"s-.". o'h, gave te-rllmo") :l]i j ."f
peared in person' the tes"imon] o: ln€

Lther 35 r*'itnesses being submitlec.e]'
ther bt afidavit. b1 deposirior' or ID Lne

form of ar: agreed-upon narrat:\'e o! t€s'

timonl given in an .eariter crllnlna; prcts

;il;;c before anorher judge. The coun

sureri-that a va't numLrr of dcruments

U""i*s on the question for decision qere

897



! 6tbl PI.,LLMANSTANDARD V SWINT
Reponed p 66. aupra

also introduced. The cpurt held that the 6xing resale prices of manufacturing dis-
trial court erred in its failure to appll tributors, the trial court found that the
the correct and established standard for evidence failed to establish that the de-
ascertaining the existence of E combina- fendanl. associated themselves in a plan
tion or conspiracy under $ I of the Sher- to blanket the industry under patent
man Act.

t'3 Corrrurxr: One writer ha-" ob
sen'ed that the opinion of the court
in United States v General Motors
Corp. (1966i 384 US 127, 16 L A ZJ
{15, 86 S Ct 1321, 1966 CCH lYade
Cases t 717fi, l0 FR Sen' u L245.
appears to suggest that the Supreme
Crcurt ma1' not yet have opted for
unqualifed application of FRCP
52ta), the writer stating that the
court i-ndicated in the General Itle
tors Case that the rationale underll'-
ing FRCP 52(a) is of limited applica-
bilitf in a case where the evidence L.

overn'helmingll' documentary in na'
ture. Note, Federai Rule of Civil
Procedure 52rat and the Scope of
Appellate Fact Rerier Ha-. Applica-
tion of the Clear)1 Erroneous Rule
Been Clear)1' Erroneous? 52 St
John's L Rev 68 (19?7i. For a discus-
sion of the application of the
"clearll' erroneous" test of FRCP
52tat tn a trial court's findings of
fact ba-sed on documentar-r' evidence.
see the annotation ai 11 ALR Fed
212

[e] Issues held to be mixed questions
of fact and las'

ln the follon'rng antitru.st cases, panit.
ular issues q'ere helC bi' the Supreme
Coun to be mixed questicns ol fact ani
Ian, on}l' part)1 sub-ieci to the "clearir
erroneou-.'' standard oi FRCP 52,a,

ln United States r. L,nited Sutes G11-
sum Co 11946, 333 LiS 36i. 92 LA 14L
66 S G 521. 7€' TISPQ 431'. reh den 33.r
us 869. 92 L EC 114;. 56 S Cl 76S
s here the government's corrrplalr,i
chargei that the defendants haC violarei
SS I anrl 2 of the Sherman Act tl5 US$
$S 1. 2, bl conspirrng to fui prrces on
patenred grysum board and unpatenrei
grysum producr.. to stanriardize gl?sulr
board and its melhoc of productror, for
the purpost of elirninaling cc,ripe'.itror.
and to regulate tht drs:riburror. oi glir
sum board b1 eirr,i::a:lng jcbr,e:'s anc

896

licenses and to stabilizp prices. The Su-
preme Court stated that insofar as the
finding in question and the subsidian
findings were based b1' the District Coun
on it.s belief that a certain rule of lau.
justifed the arrangements or because of
a misapplication of two prior cases. er.
rors of lau' occurred which the Supreme
Court could corect. Hor*'ever, the Su-
preme Crcurt declared that insofar a-s
this finding and other findings were in-
ferences dran'n from document.s or un-
disputed facts. FRCP $Zst s'1s applica-
ble Noting that the government relied
very largel5' on documentar_r' exhibits.
and called a-s s'itnesses mant of the
authors of the documents. and that the
import of s'itnesses' testimonl' rr'a-s con.
flicting, the court stated that rlhere testi-
monf is in conflict r*'ith contemporane-
ous documents the court can give ir little
weight. particularh' n'hen the cruciai
issues involve mixed question-s of lan'
and fact. The court thus concluded that
despite the opportunitl' of the trial court
to appraise the credibilitl- of the n'it-
Desses, the Supreme Court could not
under the circumstances rule othenlise
than that the finding in guestion u'a-.
clearl-v erroneous

In Unit"ed Stares v Srnger Mfg Co
(19631 3i1 US 174. lt, L EC 2d 823 83 S
CX 1773. 13i USPQ 806. a civil antitrust
action broughr bl the United St.ates
against the defendanl Lo preveni ang
restrain allegC violarions of $$ 1 and 2

of the Sherman Acl {15 USGS SS f 2
the court de:lare<i that insofar a-< the
Dis:r'ict Cour"t's conclusior-Lhat the
<iealings ol the defendanl and a comp€i.r-
tor \^e!-e characterrzed b1' an abser,ce oI
urrri! or identirl oI an-r' colrrmoI1 purpose
or motile--ierived fron: the court's aF-
plrcatior: of an improper siandard to the
facu.. it could be corrected a-. a malter of
lau. but that insofa:' &c the conclusior,
q'a-. base.i on inferences dras'n fror-
documenLs or undisputed facrs. FRCP
52'a rr'a-< appiicabie The courl con'
ciuciec tha'. the evicience. includinE
rr,ar:r finirrrE: of the triai court. ciea:'jr



.CLEARI,Y ERRONEOUS" BULE
?2LEd2d&n

I8

erftirdtbberbb
compelled the conclusion that the Par;
ties" concerted aetivities rert motivated
by a common PurP(rc, and that the trial
@urt'B onclusion to the cootrary was

clearly erroDeolrs.

17. Petents' lhe Supreme Court held in the follos-
ing patent cae€6 that particular gues'

tions as to patent infriogement were
factual issues to which the "clearly errc
neous" standard of FBCP 6?a) accord-

ingly applied.-Io C."r"r tnnlr & Mfg. Co. v Linde
Air Products Co. (1949) 336 US n\93L
En 672,69 S Ct 535, 80 USPQ 451, the
court applied tbe "clearly enoneous"
nrle of fRCp SZat to a patent infringe
ment action. The case involved a PateDt
for an eleetric welding Prooess and for
0u:e, or compmitions, to be used there'
with. The Oisi;a C,ourt held four of the
0ux claims valid and inaingea and con-

cluded that the patent owDer had not

Eisused the patent so as to forfeit its
claims to relief therefor. Noting that
FBCP 52a) provides thst fiDdingis of fact
shall not be set aside unless clearly erro
neous and that due regard must be given
to the opportunity of a trial court to
judge thJcredibility of the witnesses, the-Sufr"-" 

Court stated that to no type of
caae was this last clause more aPproPn'
ately applicable than to the instant c86e'

where lhe evidence was largely the testi-
mony of exPerts as to whicb a trial court
may be enlightened by ecientifc deaon-
strations. The Supreme Court, upholding
the 6niling-= and conclusion-' of the Dir-
tric't Court, 6tst€d that FRCP 52at re
quires that an appellate court ma[e al-
ll*'ance for the advantages pcsessed bl'
tbe trial court in appraising the sigai6-
cance of conflicting testimon;- and re
verse onll' "clearll' erroneous" flndrngE

The Supreme Court stated that while
the ultimate question of patcntabiii6' is

one of meeting the reguirements of the
statut€, the facts as found nith respect
to the four flux clairns in question sar-
raated the conclusion that a-s a matter of
Iaw those statutory requirements bad
been met.

ln a subeequent oPinion in the same

litigation, Graver TanL & MfS C.o- 1
Linde Air Producu Co (195Oi 339 US

605,91 L Ed l@?, ?0 s ct 85{, t5 usPQ
8211, reh den &{O US 845,95 L Ed 620, 7r
S G. f2, the Supreme Court, concluding
tbat tbe trial court's judgment of in-
fringement reepectitrS four 0ux clsime
w8s proper, held that 6 fi1ding of equiva'
lence under pa.tent las is a determina'
tion of fact, eDd that a trial court's
decision as to €quivalence, utrder general
principles of appellate review, ebould not
be digturbed unleas clearly erroneoua'
The court declared tlnt thi6 is particu-
larly ao in a field where eo much de
pends upon familinrity with epecifc aci-

Lntific problems and principles not usu-

ally contained in the general storehouse
of knowledge and erperieuce. The Su-

preme Court ruled that the trial judge's

conclusions were not clearly erroneous
under FRCP 52a).

| 8. Job diecrimination- lD the following job discrimination
caae, aD issue of discriminatory intent
wa-" held by the Supreme C-ourt to be a
factual issue eubject to the "clearly erro
neous" standard of FRCP 52ta).

Holding that I Federal C-ourt of AP
pesls' reversal of a Federal District
bourt's ruling as to the legality of a

eeniority system under $ 7O&h t of Title
VII of the Civil Rrchts Act of 1964 (42

USCS $ 20o0e2{h)) wa-s erroneous in
view of the Court of Appeals' indepen-
dent determination of dlegations of dis-

czimination. the Supreme Court ruled in
PulbnanStandard, Div. of Pullman, Inc'
v Swint (19821 456 US 273, 72 L U tu)

66. 102 s ct 1781. 28 BNA FEP C8s

1073, 28 CCH EPD [ 32619. 3i! FR Serv

2d 1501, that a Crcurt of APPeals ma1'

onll' reverse a District Court's finding on

discriminatory intent if it concludes that
the finding is clearll' etloneous under
FRCP 52tar, and that ilsofar as the
C,ourt of Appeal.s assumed otherwlse, it
erred. The Supreme C-ourt reasoned t'hat

FRCP 52 broadly requires that fiDdrngE

of fao not be set aside unless clear)-r'

erroneous. and that the rule does not

male erceptions or PurPort to exclude
certain categrories of factual frndings
fnom the obligation of a Court of Appeals
to accePt a Distria C-ourt's findi45 un'
less clearll' erroneous The court de-

clared thai FRCP 52 does not divide

899

b rrt..E
b1
.L

*,
bl

rlbdb
bd

r-rG
tb hrrr.bbhtr

trtS
-{Drfr
-trdrb

E-
II-

h-
tsrILiil rLH.-r*:'
d--
d-rb*

-rte
IE. DS

IEt&rr
prr-t d

'|ldtfil a.
r lbr

tb
r oGrDFl-
rt-c d

Frrr
oqrrt r aP

ro tb
s EaU.r d
mciurb,

frc
fEtr. PBCP

cmrt oG
idudus

dcrrtt

5*tI
,
*



,T
I
t-58 PLTLLMANSTANDARD v SWINT

Reported p 66, rupra

ii
g,

t
&

t
ti

facts into catcgories, an! that in particu- that FBCP 52 broadly requires that find-lar, the rule does not divide fiadings of ings of fact not u" *t 86idp rr.r*-
fact into thce that deal with "ultimate" clearly erroneous, and tn t tl," iurl'jil
fac'ts and thoee that deal with "gubsid- not- ma}.e erceptions or purport to er-iary" f-acts. Although oonceding that the clude Qrtain categories ,if fi"t""in"i-
Id" -aq not app_ly to conclusions of l"q +" court alL emphasired-;;l;
law' lhe Supreme Court stat€d that the had nofed in Swint that'issues oflil;;District court was not faulted by the are coirmonly treated * f""d;-;;:
Court of Appeals for rnisunderstand.ing ters. I
or applying an erroneous definition of I

intentional diecrimination, but was ne. $ I0. T4ademarks
versed for arriving at what the Court of - ln the following trademark case, the
Appeals thought was an errpneous 6nd- Supreme Qxrrt held that the quoiio*
lng as to whether the differentiaf impact whethef mahufacturers intentionally in-
of the seniority Eystem reflected ao in- dued ret?ilers to mislabel certain prod-
tent to discriminate oD account of race, a ucts or fwhether the mar:ufacturers con_
question which, according to the Su- tTu"d ib supply products to the retailers
preme Court, was a pu; question of whom Lhe manufacture.r f""* *uiu
iac't, subject to fnCp 52's cleaily errone mislabeling the products constituted is-
ous standard, not being a question of law sues of fact subject to the "clearly erro
or a mixed question of law and fact. neous" standard of FRCP 52(ai.
Pointing out that treating issues of in- In Inwood l,aboratories, Inc. v Ives
tent as factual matters fJr the trier of Laboratories. Inc. (l9g21 456 US 944.72
fact is commonplace, the Supreme Crcurt I M % 606, I02 S Ct 2f 82. 214 USPQ I.
stated that it had little douLt about the 34 FR Sen, 2d 1101. the Supreme CrcLrt
factual nature of the requirement of 42 held that on rerier* of a District Court's
USCS $ 2000e-2rjr) that i seniorit_v sys- finding that generic drug manufacturers
tem be free of an iltent to discriminate. were Dot vicariously liable for infringe

ge. Erections HHfrS'tffitJ**TnT'i,iT#.:
ln. the following case involving dis- cists dispensed a [eneric ar"g u"aui ;h.crimination in I 6yst€m of _electing trademark, the c,ourt or Ap]rcds errJ

count-Y commissioners. the Supreme in settirrg aside findings of fact that were
Court held that a question of discrimina- not clearl-r- erroneous since the Court Litory intent was a factual question that Appeals wa-c bound b-v the "clearl_v errc,
wa-s therefore subject to the "clearll' Deous" standard of FRCp 52tal. The
erroneous" standard of FRCP 52iat. court stated that whether the generic
_ In Rogers v lodge t1982, Ltsr ?B L Ed drug manufacturers were liable lor the
ful 10L2. r02 s c\ 3272. reh.den (uS, ?4 pharmacisls' infringng act-. depended
L a 2d 160, 103 s G 196. the court held Lpon whether. in ficr.'the manufactur-
Si1_the "clearll'erroneous" standard of ers intentionall^r induced the pharma-
FRCP 52 applied to a District Court's cist to mislabelieneric dru6rs o.. ln fr.i.
findrngs that an at-large 6vsr€m of elect- continued to suppll a certain drug roing countv commissioners was being pharmacisls whom' the manufa.tu."..
maintained for the irlridiou-c purpose of kneq, were mislabeling generic drugs
diluting the voting streagth of the blact Pointing out that the Distiict C,ourt cJn-
population, the Supreme Court further cluded that the holder of the trade-
concluding that t.he "clearll- erroneou-c" marked drw qrd" neither of these fac-
standard also applied to the Drstrict tual shon-ings, the Supreme court de
Crcurt's subsidiary findings of fact The clared that rncp s2ra, recogrrizes and
Supreme court relied on its decision in resrs upon the unique opportunit-1. a{.
Pullman-standard, Dir. of Pullmarr. Inc forded ihe trial court judie to evajuate
v Sq-int (19821 456 US 2?3. z2 L Ec zd the credibilir-v of r*"itnisei and to weigh
66. r02 s c\ i7E1, 2s B\A FEP ca-. the er-idence The coun observed that Lr
10;3. 25 ccH EPD T 32619. 33 FH S:r re.recring the Dutrict c.ourt's findings
24 7-d-t7. supra $8. for the obse:i:.::::, slnpir because it would have given moie
90(i



..CLEARLY ERRONEOUS'' :EULE: $13

the "cle y erroneoll.s" standard of
was therefore applicable
issioner v Duberstein (1960t

, 4 L &t %l 1218,80 s ct

ir

uires that 6nd-
aside unleqs

t the rule does
purport to er-
rf factual 6Dd-
rasized that it
ssuee of intent
; f,actual mat_

rark case, the
the guetions

tentionally in-
I certain prod-
rfacturers con-
o the retailers
s knen' were
constituted Ls-
"clearly erro

'?.tai.. lnc. v Ives
16 us 844. ?2
t. 2r4 usPQ 1,
upreme Crcurt
ristrict Crcurt's
nanufacturers
r for infringe-
armacisls of a
the pharma-

rug under the
{,ppeals ered
fact that were
. the C,oun of
"clear)1-erro
P 52ra, The- the generic
liable for the
ct- dependeg

manu{actur-
the pharma-

rgs or. in fact.
rain drug to
ranufacturers
eneric drugs
ict C-ourt con,
,f thr trade.
of these fac-

ne C.ourt de
rognizes and
portunitl' af-
a tc esaluale
ani rr, r'r'eigt:
.ri'ed tha: b-i

.:r : fniin6-.
a i. i il-. lfiataa

weight to evidence of mislabelinC thql
didlhe trial court, the Court of Appeals
ctearly erred, since determining the
weighl and credibility of the evidence is

theipecial proviace of the trier of fact'

$ tf. School desegregation- 
The Supreme Court held in the follow'

ing school desegregation case that a

guestion as to discriminatory inten-t w5
u ftCuut issue to which the "clearly
erroneous" standard of FRCP 52(a) ap
plied.

The "clearl1.' erroneous" standard was

applied to a school desegregation case in
Dalton Board of Education v Brinkman
(r9?9) 443 US 526.61 L Ed 2d 720,99 S
Ct 297i. reh den 444 US 887, 62 L Ed 2d

121. 100 S C.t 186. The Court of Appeals
held that at the time in question the

defendants were intentionally operating
a dual school s-vstern in riolation of the
equal protection clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment, and that the frnding
of the District C,ourt to the contrary* *'a-s

clearly erroneous. Without citing FRCP

52ta), the Supreme Crcurt held that on

the record it perceived no basis for a

challenge to thA holding of the Crcurt of
Appeali The Supreme Court declared
that it had no quarrel n'ith the view that
there is great value in appellate courts-

shouing deference to the factfinding of
local trial judges. and added that the
"clearll- erroneous" standard serves tha"
purpose *'e]1. The SuPreme Court
pointed out. however. that under that
itandard, the role and dutl- of the Court
of Appeals are clear: it must determine
rvhether the tnal coun's findings are

clear)1 erroneous. su-ctain them if the.r

are nol. bul set 15ss, a-side if thel' are

The Supreme Court noted thar the Cour"'

of Appeais performed its unavoidable
dutt in thi-. ca-re ani concluded that the
Dis:rici Courl had erreC The Supreme
Court obsen'eci that it sag nc, reason on

the record to upset the judgment of the
C,ourt oi Appeai.s in this resPect

$ 12. Tax
In the follou-rliF tan ca-qe. the Supreme

Coun helc'thal tht o..lesiron s'hether
there had tx+:' i, 'g.'- r' .ihtr. fhe mean-

ing of a p-olls':'; i' :: . jrttirra: Reve'

1190, 60

Provlston
excluding
property
26 USCS

the Internal Revenue Code
rom gross income the value of
quired by grft (Predecessor to
lO?a)t, the court held that

the questpn in the case was basically
one of fact, for determination on a case
by+ase b*is, and a question t1 w-hic\
the "clearly erroneous" standard of
FRCP 52ta) was applicable. The court
reasond that decision of the issue pre'
sented in the case had to be based ulti-
matell- on the application of the factfind-
ing iribunal's experience s'ith the
mainsprings of human conduct to the
totaliti' ol the facts of each case. The
court noted that the nontechnical nature
of the statutory standard, the ciose rela-
tionship of it to the data of practical
human experience, and the multiplicity
of relevant factual elements, *'ith their
various combinations, creating the neces-

sity of ascribing the proper force to.each'
confirmed the conclusion that primary
weight in this area must be given to the
co.,ilusions of the trier of facr' The court
stated that one consequence r*'a^' that
appellate revieu of dererminations in
this 6eld must be quir restricted, and
thar u'here the trral ha: been b1' a judge
s-ithout a jur5', the judge's findings must
stand u.,ie*' ciearll erroneous The

coun added that FRCP 52'a' appiies alsc'

to factual inferences from undisputed
basic fact-s. a-. n'ill on man]' occa-'ions bt
presented in this area

$ 13. Admiraltl
In the follou'ing admiraltl ca-se' the

question whether there haci been a de'

mi:se charter Pal-t)' $a.'< held b-r the Su-

preme Court to be an i.r'ue of fact' and

ihus subjel to lhe "clearll erroneous'
standarci of FRCP 52,a

Tne ''clearil. erronrcus rule of civi)
actions u'a-. heid to be appiicabie to sui'*
in admiraltl in generai. and in particu-
lar to the existence of the operative facts
of a demi.se charter- Partl . in Guzman v

Prchirilo (1962' 369 US 696' 6 L Ed %

001

USTC 119515, a ta:i case in-
question whether a sPecific

a taxpayer in fact o-ounted
' within the meaning of a

transfer

nue Cocie \ c' i:. i



tl3 PULLMANSTAIIDARD v SwrNT
Reported p 66, rupra

F.,:l

I

t
rp

n5, 82 S Ct f095, a longshoreman's suit
in admiralty to recover dnmages result-
rng from the unseaworthy condition of a
Elip The libel was in rem against the
ahip and in perrona-m againd the ehip's
owner, and the defense was that the ahip
had been demised to the plaintifs em-
p-loyer at all relevant times, including
the time when the unseaworthy condil
tion arce. Concluding that tire trial
court clearly disbelieved the testimonv
offered by the owner to establish a de
mise charter party, the court etst€d that
the factual fi1ding, rather than beins

trinted by an admirsion as b the legalrelationship between, ttr" partles,'I]
peared to 0o* from the -u.t." il";Itation of the testimony ."f th;';'#;;
captain. The court po
deLrminatio" 

"i ir,-"'[fi 
jL:tl,*

ambiguous testimony 
- 
is for ai;l#

court, and that such determination Hbe eet aside and reviewed onfl. if 
"i*.f,er?oneou6. The court ruled that th;;;

court'6 determination that tt"o *""'il
demise charter party was not cfuji
erToDeous.

Consult POCKEI PART iD rhir ystrrhs for later cas€ renic€

€:

.:

:I
:3i
.:,

i

902



$ llal PULLMANSTANDARD v S\4IINT
Reportcd p 66, supra

ANNOTATION

SUPREME COURT'S VIEII'S AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES
FA C:TUAL ISS UE UNDER "CLEA R LY ENR_ONE-OUS"' STANDAR DOF FEDERAL RULE OF CIVL PROCEDI.JNii SA";PROVIDINGTHAT FII\{DINGS OF FACT SHALL XOr BEISET-ESiON UNI r.SS

CLEARLY ERROITEOUS

b-v

Daniel E. Feld, J.D.

I. PnruurNeny MerrnR-s

$ 1. Introduction:
[a] Scope
ftl Related matters
Ic] Text of FRCp S2ra)

$ 2. Summarr'

TOTAL CLIENT.SER'ICE LIBRARYts REFERENCES
5 lf _Jr.r {,_Appeal and Error $S 8g9, 841_845; 82 Am Jur2d. Federal Practice and proceduie 

S 863
Annorations: see the related matters risted in the annotation,infra.
Federal Procedure. L Ed. Appeal, Certjorari. and Reries.

$ 3:649, Federat procedure, I na. f.i.f Eg ZZ:Z+S_i?,i;i"'
I Federa] Procedural Forms. L Ed, Actions in District C,ourt

$$ l:I7lA. 1:1715

23 Am Jur Pl & pr Forms (RBr.r. Trial, Forms 491_S0l
USCS. Federal Rules of Civil procedure, Rule 52
U.c L Ed Digest. epry"] and.Error gg 1464_147?. t4?9_1497;Fecieral Rule of Civit procedrr" 52"'-
L Ed Index to Annos. Appeal and Error; Clearll. ErroneousRule: Federal Rules of Crr-il p.o"J-r."
ALR Quick Index. Apry:l an_d Error; Findings; euestions ofLau or Fact; Rures olci"ir p.oc"aui": rriar-b,i.dJJ'"'- "

Federal Quick Index, Aryryal-ald Error; .,Ciearlv 
Erroneous,.Rule. Fecieral Rules oi Ciril p.o"Jur"; Findrnsie;;r;;,

cr Lau anC Facr: Supreme Court of if," Unir.ed S;;.---'""
Aulr,.Crre': An1 case cjtation herein can be checked for:...:;r;. parallel references, later histon and annotatlon .ei.'r r,i€-- thrcugh the Autdjtr computer research system.

890

(.nsutt PocKET PART io th*ffi



SITIONS; PLACE OF

lhedepcsi+icni!tcbc

icn caly h the ecuily

h*s bustner ia pcrct
y aa erder of ecurG A

to attend cnfy h fir
r wi*hin {0 nrites frcn

)nt plaee as is fixed by

ra for the takins of hir

nd at anv plaee within

or transaets business^

as is fixed by an order

g forth the territorial
lireeted to depositions
rt resides; the seeond
s not a resident of the
lhe rule, as currently
Iten cause logistical

RULES OF CIyIL PROCEDURE
Clte s 98 F.R.D. 337

359

The first sentenee states that a deponent may be required to attend
qUy in the @!y wherein he resides or is employed or transaets business
ilL.son. tlialat is, where he lives or works. Under this provision, e deponent

il b" eompelled, without eourt order, to travel from one end of his home
Iintv to the other' no matter how far that may be. The seeond sentence
ii ifre rute is somewhat more flexible, stating that someone who does not
*riO" in the distriet in whieh the deposition is to be taken ean be required

io 
"tt"nd 

in the-eounty where he is served with the subpoena, or within 40

iites from the Pla e of serviee'

Under todayrs eonditions there is no sound reason for distinguishing
b.tween residents of the distriet or eounty in whieh a deposition is to be

irten and non-residents, and the rule is amended to provide that any person
mav be subpoenaed to attend a deposition within a speeified raiius from his
r:sidenee, plaee of business, or where he was served. The 40-mile radius
has been inereased to 100 miles.

Rule 52. Pindings by t}e Court

I (a) EFFECT. In all aetions tried upon the faets without a jury

2 or with an advisory jury, the eourt shall find the faets speeially and

3 state separately its eonelusions of law thereon, and judgment shall

& be entered pursuant to Rule 58; and in granting or refusing

5 interloeutory injunetions the eourt shall similarly set forth the

6 findings of faet and eonelusions of law whieh eonstitute the grounds

7 of its aetion. Requests for findings are not neeessary for purposes

8 of review. Findings of faet, *h"th". bared on .

9 evidence, shall not be set eside unless elearly erroneous, and due

l0 regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial eourt to judge of

I I the eredibility of the witnesses and to the need for finality. The

12 findings of a master, to the extent that the eourt adopts them, shall

l3 be eonsidered as the findings of the eourt. It will be suffieient if the

}FRD-14



14

360 98 FEDERAL RULES DECISIONS

findings of faet and eonelusions of law are stated orally and

reeorded in open eourt following the elce of the evidenee or appear

in an opinion or memorandum of deeision filed by the court.

'Findings of faet and eonelusions of law are unnecessary on deeisions

of motions under Rule ' 12 or 56 or any other motion exeept as

provided in Rule 4l(b).

aaa

COMMITTEE NOTE

Rule 52(a) has been amended (l) to avoid eontinued eonfusion and
eonfliets among the eireuits as to the standard of appellate review of
findinp of faet by the eourt, (2) to eliminate the disiirity between the
standard of review as literally stated in RuIe 52(a) and the praetice of some
eourts-of.appeals, and_(3) to p-romote nationwide uniformity. See Note,
Rule 52(a): Appellate Review of rinoings of Faet Baseo on ooeur@iy og

Some eourts of appeals have stated that when a trial eourtrs findings
do not rest on demeanor evidenee and evaluation of a witnessreredibilit!,
there is no reason to defer to the trial eourt's findings and the appellaie

l5

l6

L7

l8

t9

20

eourt more readily ean find them to be elearly erroneous. See, e.g..
Mareum v. United States, 62l F.2d l4z,144-45 (Sifr Cir. 1980). Olfi'erffi
@eUatereviewmaybehadwithoutapplieationof
the. nclearly erroneousil test sinee the appellate eourt is in as good apcition as the trial eourt to review a purely doeumentary reeord. see,
e.9., Atari, Ine. v. North Ameriean Philips Consumer Eleetronies Coro..TDTTo it"o
glatel, q3! f:zd ?63, ?65-n-.lJBTETir. l98lh stuanson v. bEffrIfr-j-q:t-ifi6
Ets-F.2d 4?9, i83 (8th cir. rgso); rayioffi
372 (2d Cir. l9?9), eert. denied, 44s U.s3trF(I5$0l;a-a-fXahn Musie Co.
v. Baldwin piano &-@ 604 F.2d 755, ?s8 (iaTi,.. T0'?T.); j6fiiT.

4?7 F.zd 164, i6? tzin cin isisl.'
A third group has adopted the view that the "elearly erroneous, rule

gppUes in all nonjury eases even when findings are based solely on
doeumentary evidenee or on inferenees from undisouted faets. see. e.s..

'HI*].=S}TnSI- l6?3 F.2d 1031, 1036 (sfrr cir.), eert. oenieo, 103'SCi:
313 (1982h United States v. Texas Edueation Ageney F504, 506-0?
(sth cir. ,r @



EULES OF CIVIL PBOCEDURE
Clte &s 9t F.RD. 3:17

361

ed orelly and

or appear

by the eourt.

y on decisions

btion exeept as

I eonfusion and
lllate review of
fity between the
iraetiee of some

f iry. See Note,
Doeumentary or

i eourt's findings
ness'eredibitity,
nd the appellate
lous. See. e.s..
1980). Others go

lrt applieation of
is in as good a

lrv reeord. See,
[onies Coro..T72
I Lvdle v. United
Baker Industries,
ia,JT6'TJ-
I(ahn Music Co.
;m?Tlffih-n E:
l9? 3).

y erroneousttrule
based solelY on
faets. See. e.9.,
denied, 103'fft.
Eo-sol, so6-o?
uetora l\laza. Ine.

ffi&', i'8i,i;ii.b. 6ii. r gi r).

The eommentators also disagree es to the prope! interpretation of the

ffH: #,rl','#,!'
that rclearly erroneous" test should ippty to all forms of evidenee):gg?
E:hrilia e. uitt"r, Federal Praetiee .rd Proeedure: Civil S 2587' at
iin"iifizrl(lansuaseLf if"-ri.f"t""f,;@-iffi'T-oore,I4!
;;;"ii; ii si.ol, a[ zsaz-ss (2d ed. 1982) (rgle as written supports broader

;ffir rindings based on non-demeanor testimony)'

The Supreme court has not resolved the issue. See United states v.

rlniterlStatesGwsumCo.,333U.S.364,394-96(l948h@

ffi 
u.s. l2?, l4l n.l6 (1966); punman standard v.

-rn" 
prineipal argrment advaneed in favor of a more searehing

apoellate review of iinOing" by the distriet eourt based solely on

;ffi;;;tr;y evidenee is th;t the rationale of Rule 52(a) does not apply

*t,"n tt" fiirAings do not rest on the trial courtts assessment of eredibility
oi itre witnesseJbut on an evaluation of documentary proof and the drawing

ii inf.."n""s from it, thus eliminating the need for any speeial deferenee

;; ;h;'iriri eourt's findings. These eonsiderations are outweighed by the

oublie interest in gre siaUiiity anO judieial eeonomy that would be promoted

r;;;;;rririns g,at(the triat eourt, not the appellate tribunal, should be the

;ir;;;; th"'i""tr)1o permit eourts of appeals to share more aetivety in
iiil, h"t-fi"dins fdnetion would tend to undermine the legitimaey of the

(;i;r;;i-oor"ti"in the eyes of litigants, multiply appeals by eneoufaging

I"iJlirrt" ."irial of some faetual iisues, and needlessly realloeate judicial

(authoritV.

3

4

Rule 68. Offer of Judgncnt Settlement

At any time more than l0 30 days before the trial begins' a

pa*y defending against a e{aira any party may serve upon the an

adverse party an offer, Oenominated as an to

at{ew iudgraent tc be takea aBeinst him s'ettle a elaim for the money

or property or to the effeet speeified in his offer; w*th eosts then

i'

*



?L
URT IIFOITS UNTIED STATES SUPBEME OOUIT nEP'oITs

1.52t
w
11s73*, [.il5

9tFRD36l

735F2I'r994
7atF2drra93
7'33FZr1359
7a3F2rlr37a
?glF2dr523
756YU111
156Eld1112

Cir. ?

[4235
Oir. I

75'lFArral5
Cir. 2

59FSrl390
Cir.6

5t6FSl r69
il0BRw!53

Cir. 7
n45F2dra25
7,39F2d!3t9
753Eldtt r

5E9FSrI3m
592FSE3t -',

593FS5L
60r Fs970
602FSr$t

Cir. t I
46BRWt5t7

Curt
l93crl30
179A2At%

NY
I l7Mec2dl39

TT9r0.l5
4coA6aJt36

w

-33C-
Cir. 7

737EDd6t9
Cir. ! I

7t1FU532
Colo

587P2d994
Ohio

lloAlS9
a5tNl53

-!53-
it59USr379

461USr60t
46t US507
52USLS

{tro32
t2usLw

F7n670
l.,Fzj??6
579FSt2r
$lrs93t
5t2FS772
r5t2ISi959
5t3FSr l I 39

la6t
StlErt&

Cit.6
73rE,ill54
735F2dlqx
7}tb:un21

3l
511

16'27

ffi
r5l2

IBFSrrt9(b. U

322Nrr3t
MFPl..2'

-ato-
t0r 2

7tFSr03
s9ust89

Cir. t
75{F2dr265

Cir. I I
24

F2dt4a

?27F2drlm0
N.l

lllSu2}l
a7tA2dl253'Lrrd
677P',,,ts
?OABA'5

-.Lto --Cdo
3r?2d,455

Cir. 7
7{5F2rll 156
7{[E2dt2t7
716F,,rt213

Cir. 9
729F:Ul23t

-.43t -
uF2l&15

52USLV

Vol. rtrl
.59Nlxl

lto ,

65JSV'3J
XH.'

aroAurit
t{Y.

l22rftcra39(,th
6e5EUl356t
ann:lD{l

-.,c1-
.t9trsr29
.62t SF A
52LrSr?, 14r53
c52uSLrY-l*tsr
fsrt sl,w

It2S7
J3t SLV

:-[t269
c&. D.c.

TUEUTX
grrfst,rT

Oir.,l
727frX1t2

TrtEBtt{,
?.l5F2d9I
,ttEurJt

59ars1592
6(IitPsrx5
aorPs20s

Clr. 2
73rFX2&
r5toFsrtat5
ttzFsSl I
5t5FS 1 I 3t2
5E7FSt I 421
tttFs17.
fto2FSr5y)
l03FRDttt

Cir. 3
Fzlr93

{rt(x7
57,FSt54

r514
7?fs53s

llFs!1550
tEtFslo99
,mFsr70t

t1032
' €ir. a

TmFzltl5t
LlF2dr59
,raPsrl t5
:mFs19l
s9tFSll350
5D9FS'ltlr

Cn. 5

2clcr64 .

CIcl
6SaFzlt5l
6taEldrtT3clo
rcrcrlll
5clct63

clcl
,J3F9lo3
5r4FSl25t

-212-
Cir. D.C.

rtsTa
5F2dl5t3.

Ct.7

St'lPS2l7
5t5FSr 1252
590FSrt77
t92FSttat6

"IFSI99lt9sPsr r02
ttsrsrlt03
t9?FS1569

'TPSSTr5t Fsrtr59-'Cir. I
7Z7F:U]fI
75lEld\6,13
tzFsrlmT
sc7Fst660
5t9FS1968
{03FErt(B
- Oir.4

tr2xsr5l4
Cir. J

6tt6lEtd1xn

Cir. D.C.
?37F2rrr 102
737F2'1t 179 | 735F2d't031
?3rFZlr2to I 73rF:ld?90
73tF2rlr I 2t0 I i7StIildt I I

15,f3 l'7alF2d1936
7$Fan7O6 l71,'H,d1t2l3 ,tFsrt355
152F,dt679 | 755F21r533 rl.l93

5?9FS!604
Cir.9

73tru1077
735F2dt3 I 725Fllrt tt0 3tF2dr(tsr

-22E -
t2t slw

{1320
52USLW

TasF?d'7z2 l73OF2t'53?
75112t17 I l30F2d'ttge
75rF2t1172 li73tHU523

cir. 2 I-?35F2d rt069

t 113A21349
INJ
I tcrsu35s
I rrlr:arr
iDEEIU:

716t2t1212 I ?r15p26t597

7{7F}i llmcr I 75JF2dtl S25

\ t 5:9L58$ .,,1 '50F2C'!5: ; Gr. Fod
. r,rt(Oi ;Sin1, /rr.(flE1/:2EL :;!a7Hra,,' r4 39LIS ! Clf i,r.'5OF2l' 14,8c ii?27F?! 1 53{

Cir. I I 7t5FAlt575
nltF2drTl I cir. r

r9t2
111fi

,ry
fStSIErtta2

r793
7S5EXL259
tt?Fsrlsfl)

Cir. ?
TltE drtl
z3tF2drtt5
7aIF2dtt5?
?{lf2dtl5.l0
752F2drt258
'If,'tEnt6/.
t78FS20

{{755&.2

|1t22
52USLW

I.12.
52USLW

I.2r8
S2tJSLW
i Ir273
ljs2usLwI 115.2

,9lFSr{7
ctu_,

126FBSI8
?3aruil6
?a9F2drs35
,t9Esrt9l
t99rsl15s
6mFSrt78

Ctr. r0
j?oF2lt799
,54,t2/1r23

2:U
fst9Fsrt2?

C)r. 3
5tlFsx5

Cir. 5
I Fzdtt 155
lCir.6

f595FS'577
Ctr.9

739FZlr,l8-l
Cir. I I

n37Ettt951

755F:tdr869
C.Iif

r$cAtd922
l53cAtd927
IDOCrn7l7
tmCrR720

-rllr4-Cir. I
5f{f5176

Cir.2
tttFsrtaoT

Crr. 3
i5&)FS70

Cir. tl
;5.r5FS!1555

Cir.6
' : :F1a''i l4t,

Etd'739 7mF2d1935

736F2d't026 i 7{CF2t r6t6
| 53USL*
I l't!74 t558

' Czrr. 737t2t'tl24 ; 750FztB?0
73tF2dl I42t I 75lF2dtl5a3 57r
T{dF2j\$g i752ru564 too
74sF:dr99_< I 753Fztrt94

lrt::.'s - ela' '
b1::. s-u '"

t{ '-V:;s,*
[4-(: :

i s3USLWi I.3e3i Cir D.C
i 731F2<!3I
i ?aoF2d'l??5
i igtFS'Bs:' Cir. ]
r 5r7FSr49r
i 583FS'7;
i Cl:. 1
ic735F2r! t65l

l2ctc'z3i; Ari:
; lr7Az29(
,Gt
'!?lGa{:e
| 3t9SE i0-1'
I Ii
i2ai:Alt.'

lou 
"I 3!9)iV-t9l

rn26F2C'fof
,592FS'lrt' Crt
li?34F2iii7;
! ?JtFii'i;
: ?5oF2dld-'.c

r5cF:a ::1!, ::lF2d:157t
?S0i:c. ls- ?56F2d:1577
f5oFra';,r4{
.--ilF2a'16i : -305-Cu t tl61UStTOE'
?25Fk '10'! :isSusl$



_-

-q.,.3v.\Ju.,,...
o6.lf,t 

Lar,.,:r;,
:l-?-9"91'l':Y

',, 
'r

!!!€U
!araJ!1r 

ir
at at ar at al 

r'l ar.l.l. 
t. 

r

Irl{LE
ILiru-*r-.,

otvqo-.. 
.'/.' 

-
eE

09A
O

9O
J.ior

\O
\O

.u\O
g{)so 

a 
o 

L

I $ i F
 : e : I i X

 I f ; 5 I s f 
R

 ; E
 - ! i i ! r : : 3', * =

 =
 r 

-=
 ri =

 i i
F

F
F

 F
X

F
 F

 F
F

 F
F

. pt oi t - -'' 
oo \ lt H

F
 E

 x :l nil 
=

 ;.1 :t x 
=

 x :l
+

 rr L rL ,. ,r. rr * 
rr. r! L il t t t fi t f A

 I 
O

 t fl E
 t i i 

X
 il t X

 f, ,: il [ L,, 
u- -

qF
eF

pp=
i: =

F
F

F
F

T
F

F
H

H
H

 " A
A

$ [F
iH

F
 i IH

" Ip F
 "r i

--6
'oE

E
ddd
I!l!l{
@

60
a-:

ao- 
afrtS

gs x 333
-rorN

-a6:):a@
:-r6

E
 

L!rpo'o!!994 
E

lq!.o
d::ddN

dfld(r--:-!-{dd
ll 

\J 14 lr Ir E
 lr lr (r E

 lJlttL 
lr

6 
\O

r{)reroqlQ
 

iJerq
N

 
oO

\O
-dN

{'F
 

09oo
r 

\O
\O

F
F

r 
r 

6N
 

lg\O
\O

E
lifii;ria;ft;ii-o;r=

l-o:: 
€J 

(Je 
sP

 
q,&

 
$ 

co_
-Y

6- 
O

U
 

t 
L2

--;qr, 
r 

sE
 

r 
r 

6 
oY

I r'-*--t.

':ttl
t!ltr:
I I\. 

l a l
. gl!L
rtO

t-<
f-r.

i .- !-()
,U

ir-t-

r- t'- 
i.,

,\i * :.

ar-
t"t; 

i:

.|,V
:

l, t-.' -t
ar,a L)
€;: 

.l
.'; 

.a

E
S

:
:- .{ 

..
:uo
ii n,.!
jcb
ti-€
-_ - 

C
_,

E
E

!
.l 

d 
!^{

I{lrq

rrC
'

;;2E
 

L_o
f,uili
t_l ?
f 

r--'
':,-

t'

rl:i x;:;
.:Lul
u8:t1

rF
r (lt-!dL::c)!c{Ir;:_o::'qal
L8

,etN(!!tro--Niial
Irr.1=

.Eitllf':,-

lo'orl!Ii6L _..

6O
@

oN
o 

r',i-6o.rf
6O

O
O

-€'16-
:: 

-:.: 
P

; 
f! =

o !! 
o !E

!r!
.l.lalal.ld!lclI\
l]-lrLi!(!lru(!r
&

$O
O

O
--N

-
rrr.rerrfef

it,--.,;";
:- il - 5;, 1 :-:9
s! 

-o!P
P

ar!
d;._-.td.t:r.lC

J
irE

L,rrlr-lJ-rLrlJ.

=
ii 3;*e;3

r ', 
.o I,gt 

€tr

;i "-";-;-
Lr 

!N
 

ro 
q

trrorurof,o
o.a 

6 
(t 

6
vla' 

€ 
€ 

@
"'"1.- t 

rl 
:

* -, =
 t,*, ,:

c-C
t(1c.9',- 

,: 
-I'

,l X
X

 !,lE
F

f E
-H

tt-8sH
r

F
F

F
 €E

R
E

=
.,ll-3o-

qN
val6r6

&
V

-€---
oo 

P
s 

spo
dall{alalN

d
LL 

qu- 
[Llr-

F
,6:!\cr€rr

oo:iooao
rrl:rrrr
qJ 

at,a
o-&

 
9v,O

rE
-a{-N

db

xf R
 rxx:l

L r 
lr\Jg.!rL

N
99N

 
--6

oa.{ 
oo6

9I--r 
€rF

---;=
*-

(:rrl.r 
(.

6-----all
a{o 

-p!! 
- 

--
u1 .;.tdat 

-6
o.lr*rLLru-

--6O
.

iE
33*
:- 

;.;
vt 

€r,,!
.!:€i- 

-!'7
- 

. 
u!-;i

rdct dt
eE

X
aS

6 
E

U
 

r6t

F
IIeF

$i;$$F
r$9if ;:ri*$F

F
F

IiF
F

F
f if l=

R
xE

E
sxF

kkF
kE

iF
x 

F
x kE

F
H

x xss xx kxxsi x: x
hl!lrlLlal!=

t!(&
l|.E

|\E
E

lrlllrI! 
I!tE

LLtrlr 
E

L(! 
L-(! 

L (! L ti 
tr

€€€A
E

E
 g€E

E
ss gE

E
q66 A

q€ 66s€E
E

eE
$ F

 F
 p H

E

*q'i* qffim
r*rtiF

ru

d**ry**ed-ffiiH
t

tffi-aw
ffig'5,gi:$sgg,I'

rO
 

-^-O
- 

-@
6dO

i

=
=

r=
 y f9

pP
E

toE
E

ei!-{dctdN
d

(! E
LI!(r-l!l!

r 
q66odd

ri:rr€@
e

\oE
\o\o€\O

\o

xis!is;
\t 

@
fi 

qt
c6?€

€\oUooqEd6rt

66

r
6r 

^d
F

h-::d
-€ 

O
!

ooat
oos

V
,o

-6

*,i,*ild€

(oll)tt

=
E

E
'53^E

-c3'H
eH

fi=
E

I=
a,i'3=

3*'gIE
,it'*'E

,ieiE
E

E

R
9-B

 S
=

6fr66€
F

 
: 

..- 
- 

6
U

U
(JU

U
(J

o90000
- 

odN
N

N