The following excerpt is from O'Bert ex rel. Estate of O'Bert v. Vargo, 331 F.3d 29 (2nd Cir. 2003):
On rare occasions we have excused the absence of an adequate explanation "[w]here the reasons for the entry of judgment [we]re obvious... and a remand to the district court would result only in unnecessary delay in the appeal process." Fletcher v. Marino, 882 F.2d 605, 609 (2d Cir.1989) (inadequate explanation excused where the need for expedition was obvious, as was the nature of the public concern presented by the issues); see Perez v. Ortiz, 849 F.2d 793, 796-97 (2d Cir.1988) (accepting jurisdiction where reasons district court would have stated on remand were obvious). Most recently, we excused a district court's insufficient explanation for entering a Rule 54(b) judgment because the case was an unusual one in
Page 42
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.