Edward Valves, Inc. v. Cameron Iron Works, Inc.

Decision Date18 April 1961
Docket NumberNo. 18111.,18111.
Citation289 F.2d 355
PartiesEDWARD VALVES, INC., and Rockwell Manufacturing Company, Appellants, v. CAMERON IRON WORKS, INC., Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

William A. Strauch, John D. Nies, Washington, D. C., Garrett R. Tucker, Jr., Frank B. Pugsley, Houston, Tex., for appellants.

James B. Simms, Houston, Tex., for appellee.

Before RIVES, CAMERON and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants petition for a rehearing on two grounds. They aver that this Court erred in according undue weight to the trial court's "Findings" and in affirming the district court's holding of "wilful infringement."

(1) Appellants contend that this Court accorded undue weight to the trial court's "Findings", since the record shows that: (a) the decision of the trial court is based upon a series of misunderstandings of the facts and the law; (b) the "Findings" are inconsistent with the trial judge's reasons for his decision; (c) the "Findings" were written by appellee's counsel and were adopted substantially verbatim by the trial court, including the same punctuation, numbering, grammatical errors, and peculiarities of expression used by appellee's counsel. Appellants argued the first two points fully in two briefs and in oral argument before this Court. We have considered and reconsidered these contentions, and we are still of the opinion that they lack merit.

We did not discuss the third point in our original opinion. Appellants assert that they do not criticize the "Findings" merely because opposing counsel wrote the findings. Instead, they contend that here the trial court exercised no independent consideration in adopting the appellee's suggested findings, and that these findings are inconsistent with the trial judge's reasons for his decision.

We strongly disapprove any attempt to down-grade a trial judge's important function of fact-finding. It is true that findings and conclusions which represent a trial judge's "independent judicial labors and study" are far more helpful to this Court than the mechanical adoption of the successful attorney's "suggested" findings. Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 5 Cir., 1958, 259 F.2d 398, 401; United States v. Forness, 2 Cir., 1942, 125 F.2d 928, 942. Nevertheless, the same test is applied to findings, whether the court prepared them or adopted those submitted by counsel. The court's adoption of appellee's findings does not impeach or discredit them. We accord them full weight. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. Cooper Terminal Co., Inc., 7 Cir., 1955, 217 F.2d 321, 322-323; Vincent v. Suni-Citrus Products Co., 5 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 305, 310-311; Tubular Service & Engineering Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 5 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 27; O/Y Finlayson-Forssa A/B v. Pan Atlantic Steamship Corp., 5 Cir., 1958, 259 F.2d 11, 18, note 14. We have, however, compared the record and the findings in the light of the petition for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • April 18, 1983
    ...F.2d 885 (5th Cir.1965); Edward Valves, Inc. v. Cameron Iron Works, Inc., 286 F.2d 933, 944 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 289 F.2d 355 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 833, 82 S.Ct. 55, 7 L.Ed.2d 34 (1961); Deere & Co. v. International Harvester Co., 460 F.Supp. 523, 534 (S.D.Ill......
  • Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, In re
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • June 16, 1976
    ...82 S.Ct. 1566, 8 L.Ed.2d 504 (1962); Edward Valves, Inc. v. Cameron Iron Works, Inc., 286 F.2d 933, 947, modified on other grounds, 289 F.2d 355 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 833, 82 S.Ct. 55, 7 L.Ed.2d 34 (1961); Haloro, Inc. v. Owens-Corning Fibreglas Corp., 105 U.S.App.D.C. 320, 266......
  • Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • January 5, 1983
    ...supra, at 890-891; Edward Valves, Inc. v. Cameron Iron Works, Inc., 286 F.2d 933, 943-945 (5th Cir.1961), modified on other grounds, 289 F.2d 355 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 833, 82 S.Ct. 55, 7 L.Ed.2d 34 (1961); George P. Converse & Co. v. Polaroid Corporation, 136 F.Supp. 912, 916 ......
  • Norton Co. v. Carborundum Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • February 23, 1976
    ...146, 147, 78 L.Ed. 293 (1933); cf. Edward Valves, Inc. v. Cameron Iron Works, Inc., 286 F.2d 933, 947, modified on other grounds, 289 F.2d 355 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 833, 82 S.Ct. 55, 7 L.Ed.2d 34 (1961). Accordingly, we find no error in the district cuort's reliance on the stat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT