-18-
Unless a party shall have proposed a particular finding
of fact, or unless the party shall have objected to
another party’s proposed finding of fact, the Judge may
refuse to consider the party’s objection to the Special
Trial Judge’s recommended findings of fact and
conclusions of law for failure to make such a finding
or for inclusion of such finding proposed by the other
party, as the case may be. [Emphasis added.]
(d) Action on the Recommendations: The Judge to whom
the case is assigned may adopt the Special Trial
Judge’s recommended findings of fact and conclusions of
law, or may modify or reject them in whole or in part,
or may direct the filing of additional briefs, or may
receive further evidence, or may direct oral argument,
or may recommit the recommended findings of fact and
conclusions of law with instructions. The Judge’s
action on the Special Trial Judge’s recommended
findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be
reflected in the record by an appropriate order or
report. Due regard shall be given to the circumstance
that the Special Trial Judge had the opportunity to
evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and the findings
of fact recommended by the Special Trial Judge shall be
presumed to be correct.
Consistent with new Rule 183(c), the parties were served
with copies of the STJ report. In view of the recent amendment
to Rule 183, and the unique procedural posture of these cases,
the Court extended the dates within which the parties were
directed to file the objections and responses referred to in new
Rule 183(c). Respondent and Kanter filed objections to the STJ
report. Ballard and Lisle filed notices of no objection to the
STJ report. Kanter, Ballard, and Lisle filed responses to
respondent’s objection to the STJ report, and respondent filed a
response to Kanter’s objection to the STJ report.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011