(Download) "World Airways Inc. v. Northeast Airlines Inc." by United States Court of Appeals First Circuit * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: World Airways Inc. v. Northeast Airlines Inc.
- Author : United States Court of Appeals First Circuit
- Release Date : January 30, 1966
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 62 KB
Description
This action seeking, inter alia, an injunction, is again before us under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), following proceedings in the district court granting the relief. On the earlier appeal, except to make some suggestions essentially about the form of the decree, we affirmed the decision of the district court granting a summary judgment enjoining defendants from conducting charter flights to Florida under a certain arrangement. World Airways, Inc. v. Northeast Airlines, Inc., 1 Cir., 1965, 349 F.2d 1007, cert. den. 382. U.S. 984, 86 S. Ct. 561, 15 L. Ed. 2d 473. We did note one exception of substance, namely, that there lacked sufficient basis for including in the injunction trips to Hawaii. As to this we stated that 'Northeast must establish, and the court must find, facts establishing the interest of Northeast in the East Coast-Hawaii flights,' and remanded 'for findings with respect * * * (thereto).' In view of developments, this language was apparently unclear. Following remand the court, perhaps guided by our reference to a lack of findings, construed our requirement that Northeast 'establish * * * facts' as a mere obligation to persuade the court to make formal findings from the affidavits already of record, to the exclusion of anything new. On the basis of its new 'findings,' the court essentially reaffirmed the summary judgment.1 This was a misconception. The affidavits of record were already before us on the prior appeal, whether the court had made any 'findings' or not. Had they warranted a summary judgment, there would have been no occasion for a remand. 'Findings of fact * * * are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rules 12 and 58 * * *.' F.R.Civ.P. 52(a). We remanded because, in our view, so far as Hawaii was concerned, the only type of findings the record presently warranted were not inescapable conclusions required for a summary judgment. Cf. Bragen v. Hudson County News Co., 3 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 615, 618. The fact that the affidavits were uncontradicted did not improve their content.