3. Refusal to give
The trial court was not required to make a specific determination regarding which driver had the right-of-way where no party requested specific findings by the court. Hall v. County of Lancaster, 287 Neb. 969, 846 N.W.2d 107 (2014).
In the absence of a specific request by a party, a trial court is not required to make detailed findings of fact. Lange Indus. v. Hallam Grain Co., 244 Neb. 465, 507 N.W.2d 465 (1993).
In a case tried to the court without a jury, a motion for specific findings of fact must be made before final submission of the case to the court. Stuczynski v. Stuczynski, 238 Neb. 368, 471 N.W.2d 122 (1991).
Purpose of statute is to enable parties to question the rulings of the trial court upon legal questions involved. Such conclusions of fact and law are mandatory when requested in a law action, but are merely helpful in equity actions since the Supreme Court reviews the record de novo and reaches conclusions independent of the trial court. Under this section the court is not obliged to answer specific interrogatories propounded to it by a litigant. Fee v. Fee, 223 Neb. 128, 388 N.W.2d 122 (1986).
This section does not require the court to reply to specific interrogatories propounded to it by a litigant but only to provide, when requested, such findings of fact as the court concludes are appropriate and necessary to resolve the action. Lindgren v. City of Gering, 206 Neb. 360, 292 N.W.2d 921 (1980).
The court need only state its finding generally unless one of the parties timely requests conclusions of fact. Henkle & Joyce Hardware Co. v. Maco, Inc., 195 Neb. 565, 239 N.W.2d 772 (1976).
Special findings are unnecessary unless requested. Bailey v. McCoy, 187 Neb. 618, 193 N.W.2d 270 (1971).
After court has announced decision, request made for separate findings of fact and conclusions of law came too late. In re Estate of Wiley, 150 Neb. 898, 36 N.W.2d 483 (1949).
Special findings are not required when no request therefor is made. Mogil v. Maryland Casualty Co., 147 Neb. 1087, 26 N.W.2d 126 (1947).
When a request is properly made of the court for separate findings of fact and conclusions of law, the provisions of this section are mandatory. Dormer v. Dreith, 145 Neb. 742, 18 N.W.2d 94 (1945).
Where a jury is waived, request by one of the parties is a prerequisite to special findings of fact. Condon Co. v. Loup River Public Power Dist., 135 Neb. 284, 281 N.W. 31 (1938).
Request for special findings of fact and separate conclusions of law, in trial of a cause to the court without a jury, must be made before the final submission of the case to render compliance therewith compulsory. State ex rel. Sorensen v. Mitchell Irr. Dist., 129 Neb. 586, 262 N.W. 543 (1935).
Request for statement of court's conclusions of law and fact is effective if made within reasonable time before action is required thereon. Henley v. Live Stock Nat. Bank, 127 Neb. 857, 257 N.W. 244 (1934).
It is mandatory in law action, without jury, that court shall, on request, separately state conclusions of fact and of law. Carl v. Wentz, 116 Neb. 880, 219 N.W. 390 (1928); Lyman v. Waterman, 51 Neb. 283, 70 N.W. 921 (1897).
Purpose of requiring separate findings of fact and conclusions of law is to enable parties to question the rulings of the court upon legal questions involved. Modern Woodmen of America v. Lane, 62 Neb. 89, 86 N.W. 943 (1901).
Separate findings must be requested. Sheibley v. Dixon County, 61 Neb. 409, 85 N.W. 399 (1901).
Request must be made not later than final submission of case. Ross v. Barker, 58 Neb. 402, 78 N.W. 730 (1899).
Request to find separately as to certain matters is not request for separate findings. Axthelm v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 2 Neb. Unof. 444, 89 N.W. 313 (1902).
The failure by the trial court separately to state findings of fact or conclusions of law under this section is not reversible error where the record affirmatively shows that such failure worked no injury to appellant. D & R Realty v. Bender, 230 Neb. 301, 431 N.W.2d 920 (1988).
General finding is sufficient in absence of request for special findings. Mueller v. Keeley, 165 Neb. 243, 85 N.W.2d 309 (1957).
Where facts were not disputed and court made findings covering important points in case, failure to find additional facts was not reversible error. National Bond & Investment Co. v. Haas, 124 Neb. 631, 247 N.W. 563 (1933).
Omission of facts conclusively established, treated as found, on appeal. Lancaster County v. Fitzgerald, 86 Neb. 676, 126 N.W. 141 (1910).
Finding that "all the equities are with plaintiff," is one of law and insufficient to support judgment. Ganow v. Denny, 68 Neb. 706, 94 N.W. 959 (1903).
If the court finds all of the facts from which the law will infer a fraudulent intent, a decree based thereon will not be reversed as contrary to law because the court failed to state in its finding that the fraudulent intent existed. Cochran v. Cochran, 62 Neb. 450, 87 N.W. 152 (1901).
When the court makes special findings of fact and they are silent as to a material issue, such omissions will be construed against the party on whom rested the burden of establishing such issue. Farrell v. Bouck, 61 Neb. 874, 86 N.W. 907 (1901).
General finding for plaintiff by justice of peace is sufficient to sustain judgment on error proceedings. Coad v. Read, 48 Neb. 40, 66 N.W. 1002 (1896).
General finding is in lieu of verdict, and need be no more specific. Rhodes v. Thomas, 31 Neb. 848, 48 N.W. 886 (1891).
In the absence of any special or general findings on issues properly presented, no judgment can stand. Foster v. Devinney, 28 Neb. 416, 44 N.W. 479 (1890).
This section does not require findings of fact to be separately stated but only separated from conclusions of law. Haller v. Blaco, 14 Neb. 195, 15 N.W. 348 (1883).
If finding be vague, uncertain, or indefinite, judgment is voidable but not void. Sprick v. Washington County, 3 Neb. 253 (1874).
In the absence of a request by a party for specific findings, a trial court is not required to make detailed findings of fact and need only make its findings generally for the prevailing party. Lesser v. Eagle Hills Homeowners' Assn., 20 Neb. App. 423, 824 N.W.2d 77 (2012).
3. Refusal to give
Court may refuse a request for separate findings of fact and conclusions of law which are improper in form. Donald v. Heller, 143 Neb. 600, 10 N.W.2d 447 (1943).
Where evidence is not in conflict upon any issue necessary to support judgment, a failure by the trial court to state separately findings of fact or conclusions of law, even though request is made therefor, is not a reversible error. In re Guardianship of Lyon, 140 Neb. 159, 299 N.W. 322 (1941).
Refusal of request for special findings made after judgment entered is not error. Austin v. Diffendaffer, 96 Neb. 747, 148 N.W. 907 (1914).
It is error for the court to refuse to make special findings, and the error is not cured by assigning findings on overruling a motion for a new trial. Wiley v. Shars, 21 Neb. 712, 33 N.W. 418 (1887).
This section does not apply to criminal cases. State v. Osborn, 250 Neb. 57, 547 N.W.2d 139 (1996).
This section does not apply to criminal cases. State v. Dake, 247 Neb. 579, 529 N.W.2d 46 (1995).
This section has no application to criminal proceedings. State v. Franklin, 241 Neb. 579, 489 N.W.2d 552 (1992).
As a judicial practice, a specific finding for the prevailing party is desirable; however, such is not required and, in the absence of a request for such findings, we examine the judgment as recorded. Havelock Bank v. Woods, 219 Neb. 57, 361 N.W.2d 197 (1985).
Where neither party requested findings hereunder, the court presumes that controverted facts were decided by the trial court in favor of the successful party. Burgess v. Curly Olney's, Inc., 198 Neb. 153, 251 N.W.2d 888 (1977).
Judgment not based on general or specific findings is erroneous, but not necessarily void. Maryott v. Gardner, 50 Neb. 320, 69 N.W. 837 (1897).
It is error for court to enter decree annulling title without either a special or general finding against defendant. Edwards v. Reid, 39 Neb. 645, 58 N.W. 202 (1894).
This section applies to justice practice. Crossley v. Steele, 13 Neb. 219, 13 N.W. 175 (1882).
Unsolicited, specific findings recited by the trial court during the hearing on a motion for new trial, and written by the court in the order denying that motion, may supplant the general finding made in the initial judgment. C. Goodrich, Inc. v. Thies, 14 Neb. App. 170, 705 N.W.2d 451 (2005).
If there be a conflict between the general and special findings made by the trial court, the special findings will control. Citizens Bank of Humphrey v. Stockslager, 1 Neb. Unof. 799, 96 N.W. 591 (1901).