Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Aponte-Figueroa v. Bulk Terminal, 95-1884 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-1884 Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: JOSE L. APONTE-FIGUEROA, ET AL.Circuit Judges.Luis F. Padilla for appellants., _______________, Ruperto J. Robles for appellee.F.2d 148, 152 (1st Cir.infects the magistrate's findings of fact.judge's well-considered opinion.
USCA1 Opinion









February 23, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

_________________________



No. 95-1884



JOSE L. APONTE-FIGUEROA, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

BULK TERMINAL OPERATORS, INC.,

Defendant, Appellee.

_________________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Justo Arenas, U.S. Magistrate Judge] _____________________

_________________________

Before

Selya, Boudin and Lynch,

Circuit Judges. ______________

_________________________

Luis F. Padilla for appellants. _______________
Ruperto J. Robles for appellee. _________________

_________________________



_________________________
















Per Curiam. The law of contract formation being Per Curiam. ___________

settled, the only question presented on this appeal is whether

the decision of the magistrate judge, entered after a full trial

over which he presided, see 28 U.S.C. 636(c), is clearly

erroneous in one or more respects. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). ___

The clear error hurdle is high: an appellate court "ought not to

upset findings of fact or conclusions drawn therefrom unless, on

the whole record, we form a strong, unyielding belief that a

mistake has been made." Cumpiano v. Banco Santander P.R., 902 ________ _____________________

F.2d 148, 152 (1st Cir. 1990); accord In re Tully, 818 F.2d 106, ______ ___________

109 (1st Cir. 1987).

Here, the hurdle is insurmountable. We have examined

the record in this case, read the parties' briefs, and

entertained oral argument. As a result of that careful review,

we conclude, without serious question, that no clear error

infects the magistrate's findings of fact. After all, "when

there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's

choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous." Johnson v. _______

Watts Regulator Co., 63 F.3d 1129, 1138 (1st Cir. 1995). _____________________

Consequently, we need go no further. We affirm the judgment

below for substantially the reasons set forth in the magistrate

judge's well-considered opinion. See Aponte-Figueroa v. Bulk ___ _______________ ____

Terminal Operators, Inc., No. 93-2488 (DRD) (JA), slip op. __________________________

(D.P.R. July 5, 1995).



Affirmed. Affirmed. ________


2






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer