EDGAR BETANCOURT v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “a proper determination of the questions of law ... cannot be made in the absence of suitable findings”
• holding that a district did not satisfy its duty under Rule 52(a) when it failed to set out facts supporting its verdict
• holding that a district court failed to satisfy its duty under Rule 52(a) to set out facts supporting its verdict
• stating that in order for the trial court's factual conclusion to withstand review \there must be findings ... which are sufficient to indicate the factual basis for the ultimate conclusion\
• interpreting both Rule 52(a) and a provision of the Bankruptcy Act containing similar language
• findings were not sufficiently comprehensive to warrant affirming the district court’s judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).