Also known as: finding of fact · findings of facts · fact findings
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Determinations by the trier of fact that resolve disputed factual questions presented at trial. These determinations must be stated specially and separately from conclusions of law in nonjury cases. They receive deferential review on appeal and may be amended on timely postjudgment motion.
Fisher Foods sued Frontier Capital after a bench trial over disputed delivery volumes. The district court credited Frontier's consultant testimony and found the volumes unproven. On appeal Fisher argued the finding was wrong because of conflicting photographs and test results. The appellate court upheld the finding because it was not clearly erroneous and the trial judge had observed the witnesses.
Farah Fox sued Fairview Manufacturing for breach after a nonjury trial. The court entered judgment for Fairview with brief oral findings. Twenty days later Farah moved under Rule 59 to open the judgment and add findings based on newly highlighted log data. The court granted the motion, took additional testimony, and issued amended findings supporting a new judgment for Farah.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Felicity French challenged a state waiting-period statute in federal court. The district court made detailed findings that the requirement forced many women to make two trips and increased exposure to protestors. Those findings supported the conclusion that the statute imposed an undue burden in practice.
Flora Ford obtained a large state-court verdict against Franklin Foundry. On appeal the defendant argued the verdict was excessive under state law. The federal court treated the jury's factual findings on damages as controlling and applied the state excessiveness standard only to the legal question of whether those findings supported the award.
Felix Franco was convicted and later sought federal habeas relief alleging ineffective assistance. The state court had made findings that counsel's investigation was adequate. The federal court accepted those findings as binding under the statutory deference rule and treated the ultimate ineffectiveness question as a mixed issue of law and fact.
Farid Farahani challenged termination of disability benefits. The agency made findings that his condition had improved. On judicial review the court examined whether those findings rested on substantial evidence and satisfied due-process requirements for pre-termination process.
Rule 52(a)(6) requires that findings of fact not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. The appellate court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge witness credibility. This deferential standard applies whether the evidence was oral or documentary.
Yes. Rule 52(a)(5) expressly permits a party to question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings whether or not the party requested findings, objected to them, or moved to amend them.
Rule 52(b) authorizes amendment on a party's motion filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment. The court may also amend findings when granting a new-trial motion under Rule 59(a)(2).
Yes. When a federal court grants or refuses an interlocutory injunction it must state the findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its action. A bare one-sentence denial after conflicting expert testimony fails this requirement.
…and decisions of the Secretary after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or decision of the Secretary shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the Secretary, or any officer…