Edward H. Schwartz Const. Inc. v. Driessen
Construction, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Garry Driessen d/b/a A & G
Construction Company, Defendant and Appellant
Judge John C. McClintock, Jr.
| Appellant: | Ronald G. Schmidt | |
| Appellee: | Ramsey Law Office, P.L.L.C. |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
I. Whether The Trial Court's Findings of Fact are Clearly Erroneous (1) As Without Substantial Evidentiary Support; (2) Induced by an Erroneous View of Law; or, (3) Even if Some Evidence Supports Findings, Upon Review of Entire Evidence this Court Will be Left With the Definite and Firm Conviction That the Trial Court has Made Mistakes?
II. Whether the Trial Court's Conclusions of Law (1) That an Oral Contract was Formed; (2) That, if so, the Contract was Not Conditioned Upon the Plaintiff's Securing a Gravel Pit; (3) that the Contract did not Fail Because of a Lack of Timely Acceptance; and (4) that Defendant Driessen Breached the Contract are Unsupported by the Evidence or Induced by an Erroneous View of the Law or Mistake as a Matter of Law?
Whether the Supreme Court is Bound by the "Clearly Erroneous Rule" Since the Findings and Conclusions Which Rest Primarily Upon Documentary Evidence This Court is as Capable of Reading and Understanding As the Trial Court?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the trial court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous (1) as without substantial evidentiary support; (2) induced by an erroneous view of law; or, (3) even if some evidence supports findings, upon review of entire evidence this Court will be left with the definite and firm conviction that the trial court has made mistakes?
II. Whether the trial court's conclusions of law (1) that an oral contract was formed; (2) that, if so, the contract was not conditioned upon the plaintiff's securing a gravel pit; (3) that the contract did not fail because of a lack of timely acceptance; and (4) that defendant Driessen breached the contract are unsupported by the evidence or induced by an erroneous view of the law or mistake as a matter of law?
III. Whether the Supreme Court is bound by the "clearly erroneous rule" since the findings and conclusions which rest primarily upon documentary evidence this Court is as capable of reading and understanding as the trial court?
Add Docket 20050150 RSS