Mapco Express, Inc. v. Faulk

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Alaska Civil Rule 52(a) requires \remand for more detailed findings only if” a trial court's findings do not \(i) allow for meaningful appellate review and (ii
• concluding damages finding was “adequately explained by the computations” in opposing party’s motion for reconsideration “read in conjunction with evidence presented at the trial”
• noting that Alaska Civil Rule 52(a) requires “remand for more detailed findings only if” a trial court’s findings do not “(i) allow for meaningful appellate review and (ii
• noting that Alaska Civil Rule 52(a) requires “remand for more detailed findings only if” a trial court’s findings do not “(i) allow for meaningful appellate review and (ii
• noting we will remand for more detail if trial court’s findings are not “clear and explicit” enough to “allow for meaningful appellate review”
• electing not to remand for an explicit finding because \it [was] obvious how the trial court resolved [the] conflict\ between testimony and purportedly contradictory evidence, accepting the former as credible despite the conflict

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).