Hunter Douglas Corporation v. Lando Products, Inc., Lando Products, Inc. v. Hunter Douglas Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
LEMMON, Circuit Judge.
Strong almost to the point of vehemence is the expression “clearly erroneous”. An appellate court should bear this in mind when it applies Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., which provides that “In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury * * * [¶] hidings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses.”
Too often appellate courts give only lip-service to the rule that, “Having seen and heard the witnesses, the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Burnham Chemical Co. v. Borax Consolidated, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
- Hunter Douglas Corp. v. Lando Products, Inc. Lando Products, Inc. v. Hunter Douglas CorpCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1954
- Wolfe v. National Lead Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1953
3Cited by15 opinions
- Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer v. Cecil C. Campbell, Circuit Clerk and Registrar of Sunflower County, MississippiCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
- Delaware Valley Marine Supply Co. v. American Tobacco Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1960
- Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation, a Corporation v. City of Seattle, Wash., a Municipal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
- Association of Western Railways v. Riss & Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1962
- Harsh Investment Corp. v. Bialac (In Re Bialac)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.