California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Oldis v. La Societe Francaise De Bienfaisance Mutuelle, 130 Cal.App.2d 461, 279 P.2d 184 (Cal. App. 1955):
The fallacy of this argument is that it uses the opinion to impeach and annul the findings. It overlooks the possibility that further consideration during the weeks that intervened between the rendition of the opinion and the formulation and filing of the findings well may have convinced the judge he should revise his appraisal of the evidence. 'No antecedent expression of the judge, whether casual or cast in the form of an opinion, can in any way restrict his absolute power to declare his final conclusion in the only manner authorized by law, to wit, by filing the 'decision' (findings of fact and conclusions of law) provided for by sections 632 and 633 of the Code of Civil Procedure.' Scholle v. Finnell, 173 Cal. 372, 376, 159 P. 1179, 1181.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.