U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1968

Patricia B. Fehringer and Vincent D. Fehringer v. Bluebeard's Castle, Inc

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided May 24, 1968 · Kalodner, Staley, Seitz

395 F.2d 851; 6 V.I. 471; 12 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1101; 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6788 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Thomas D. Ireland, Esq., Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, for appellants, William W. Bailey, Esq., Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, for appellee

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Patricia B. Fehringer and Vincent D. Fehringer v. Bluebeard's Castle, Inc (3d Cir. 1970)
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Pant (District Court, Virgin Islands 1994)
Stallworth Timber Co. v. Triad Building Supply (District Court, Virgin Islands 1997)
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Abel (In re Abel) (District Court, D. Maryland 1981)
Federal Trade Commission v. British Oxygen Company, Ltd. (3d Cir. 1976)
Hodge v. McGowan (District Court, Virgin Islands 1993)
Mechele Vinson v. Sidney L. Taylor (D.C. Cir. 1985)
United States v. Michael John McGlynn and Kevin John Schantzen (8th Cir. 1982)
Ernest E. Burgess v. M/v Tamano, Appeal of United States of America (1st Cir. 1977)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment of the District Court of the Virgin Islands, sitting without a *472 jury, dismissing the complaint on the merits. The findings of fact state merely that the plaintiff fell on the steps of defendant’s establishment on the evening of April 30,1965, and “That defendant was not negligent with respect to the aforesaid fall of plaintiff.” The plaintiffs urge that the court failed to follow the clear weight of the evidence, and request us to enter judgment in their favor.

Unfortunately, we cannot decide the merits of this appeal. The ultimate finding that defendant was not negligent is absolutely unsupported by any subsidiary finding of fact. Indeed, the paucity of findings, in disregard of the requirements of Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that findings of fact and conclusions of law be sufficient to indicate the bases of the trial court’s decision, precludes any intelligent review by this court.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court will be vacated and the cause remanded to the district court with directions to make findings of fact and state conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 52(a) and to enter in accordance therewith a proper judgment.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.