Post-Trial Procedure Flashcards
Appeals
1) Generally, there must be a final judgment
2) interlocatory appeal allowed after the denial or grant of an injunction
Claim Preclusion
(Res Judicata)
The doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) provides that a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes a party from successive litigation of an identical claim in a subsequent action.
Three Requirements:
1) The same P and the same D from lawsuit #1
2) Lawsuit #1 ended in a valid final judgment on the merits; and
- court had PJ and SMJ, and D had proper notice and an opportunity to be heard
- However, when a D participates in an action and litigates or could have litigated the existence of jurisdiction, a judgment may be given preclusive effect even though, after the judgment has become final, it is ascertained that the court lacked jurisdiction.
-
Final = there is nothing further for the court to do but order entry of judgment.
3) Claimant is asserting the same claim as in Lawsuit #1
Issue Preclusion
(Collateral Estoppel)
Example:
- P1 sues D and P1 wins an issue of fact or law.
- Plaintiff 2 brings a second lawsuit against the same D and asks the court to preclude the D from relitigating the issue.
4 Requirements:
1) Same issue was actually litigated;
2) Final valid judgment on the merits;
3) Issue was essential to the judgment; and
4) The party against whom issue preclusion is asserted must have been a party to the prior lawsuit or represented in that lawsuit (a successor-in-interest)–must be fair for new P to asser the same issue (prior law required a mutuality of parties)
Appellate Standards of Review
1) De novo
- No deference to trial judge’s legal determination
- Reverse if reasonably believe trial judge misinterpreted law
Applicability:
- Pure legal issues, eg:
- conclusions of law
- content of jury instructions
2) Clear error
- Highly deferential to trial judge’s factual findings
- Reverse if no reasonable judge would have made this finding
Applicability
- Factual issues in bench trials, eg:
- credibility of witnesses
- factual determinations
3) Substantial evidence
- Highly deferential to jury’s factual findings
- Reverse if no reasonable jury would have made this finding
Applicability
- Factual issues in jury trials, eg:
- credibility of witnesses
- jury’s verdict
4) Abuse of discretion
- Highly deferential to trial judge’s discretionary decisions
- Reverse only if decision was unreasonable/arbitrary
Applicability:
- Discretionary rulings by judge, eg:
- grant/denial of new trial
- admissibility of evidence
If a federal agency is a party to the suit, how many days within the entry of final judgment must a notice of appeal be filed?
A notice of appeal may be filed within 60 days of the entry of final judgment when a federal agency is a party to the suit.
The time to file a notice of appeal is extended to 60 days if one of the parties is (1) the United States, (2) a federal agency, or (3) a federal officer or employee sued for conduct that relates to government duties.
***General Rule: a party must generally file a notice of appeal with the district court clerk within 30 days after the entry of final judgment.
Final-judgment Rule
Rule: Appeal only allowed after final judgment
- If multiple claims/parties, final judgment as to fewer than all claims/parties appropriate if court expressly determines no justifiable reason for delay
Exceptions: Mnemonic: In Certain Circumstances, An Appeal Can Be Made Prematurely
- Interlocutory appeals* concerning:
Injunction (grant/denial)
Certification by district court
Class action certification
Appointment of receiver
Admiralty case
Collateral-order doctrine
Bankruptcy cases (certain orders)
Mandamus (petition for writ)
Patent infringement order (only accounting left)
Interlocatory Appeals Statute
The interlocutory appeals statute allows certain orders to be appealed before the entry of a final judgment—eg, the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction.
A temporary restraining order extended beyond 14 days is equivalent to a preliminary injunction and is immediately appealable under this statute.
Writ of Mandamus
Absent limited exceptions, a party cannot seek appellate review of a district court’s order until a final judgment has been entered. A petition for a writ of mandamus is one such exception.
It requests that an appellate court direct a district court to do or refrain from doing something when exceptional circumstances clearly exist and no other adequate remedy is available.
As a result, this writ is appropriate only in extremely limited situations—eg:
i) when a district court clearly exercises unlawful jurisdiction
ii) when a district court clearly usurps another branch’s power and threatens separation of powers
iii) to protect a party’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial
Collateral-Order Doctrine
The collateral-order doctrine is an exception to the final-judgment rule.
It allows an interlocutory appeal before final judgment when:
(1) a district court order conclusively resolves an important issue,
(2) that issue is separate from the merits of the underlying claim, and
(3) that order is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
In Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, the Supreme Court held that a district court’s order rejecting a party’s attorney-client privilege claim is not a collateral order.
That is because this important issue, though separate from the merits, can be effectively reviewed on appeal from the final judgment.
For example, if the appellate court finds the privilege applicable, it can remand the case for a new trial without the privileged evidence. Therefore, the appellate court likely will not hear the company’s appeal under the collateral-order doctrine.
Post-trial Correction of Mistakes
Rule 60(a)
- Clerical
- Misstatement of court’s intent
- e.g., court entered judgment for $10,000 instead of $100,000
-
Time of Correction
- Before appeal docketed: on court’s own initiative or by motion
- Oversight/omission
- Exclusion misrepresents court’s intent
- e.g., judgment failed to include the required interest in award
-
Time of Correction
- After appeal docketed: with appellate court’s leave (i.e., permission)
Relief from final judgment
Rule 60(b)
A party can seek extraordinary relief from a district court’s final judgment in limited circumstances.
This motion for relief may generally be made within a reasonable time, but it must be made within one year from the entry of the final judgment when the motion asserts any of the following grounds for relief:
a) The judgment was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect by the nonmovant or the court.
b) The movant has discovered new evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence in time to move for a new trial—i.e., within 28 days of the final judgment.
c) The nonmovant engaged in misrepresentation, misconduct, or fraud; OR
i) Within a reasonable time, with no definite limiting period, on the grounds that:
1) a judgment is void;
2) a judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged;
3) a judgment was based on a judgment that was reversed or vacated;
4) applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable; or
5) for any other reason that justifies relief.
Collateral-Order Doctrine
The collateral-order doctrine provides a narrow exception to the final-judgment rule.
Under this doctrine, an interlocutory order will be characterized as final and immediately appealable if three elements are met:
1) the order conclusively resolves an important issue (the officer’s immunity) (my uworld).
2) That issue is separate from the merits of the underlying claim (whether the officer used excessive force).
3) The order cannot be effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment (the officer’s claim of immunity will be ineffective once the case has gone to trial).
Grounds for New Trial
1) Prejudicial trial error (eg, erroneous evidentiary ruling)
2) Prejudicial misconduct by judge, attorney, party, or juror
3) Verdict not supported by clear weight of evidence
4) Verdict based on false/nonexistent evidence
5) Excessive or inadequate damages
6) Newly discovered evidence
When will a court grant a new based on newly discovered evidence?
A court will grant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence if the movant shows that:
i) the evidence was unknown to the movant at the time of trial
ii) the movant used due diligence to discover the evidence before the end of trial
iii) the evidence is material—not cumulative or impeaching—and
iv) a new trial considering the evidence will likely result in a different outcome.
Post-Trial Relief
- Attorney’s fees
Grounds: Statute or rule allows recovery
Timing: ≤ 14 days after entry of final judgment
- Judgment as matter of law
Grounds: Evidence legally insufficient to find for nonmovant
Timing: ≤ 28 days after entry of final judgment
- New trial
Grounds:
a) Prejudicial trial error
b) Prejudicial misconduct by judge, attorney, party, juror
c) Verdict not supported by clear weight of evidence
d) Verdict based on false/nonexistent evidence
e) Excessive or inadequate damages
f) Newly discovered evidence
Timing: ≤ 28 days after entry of final judgment
- Alter/amend judgment
Grounds:
a) Manifest error of law or fact is basis for judgment
b) Intervening change in controlling law
c) Newly discovered evidence
Timing: ≤ 28 days after entry of final judgment
- Correction of mistake
Grounds:
a) Clerical mistake
b) Mistake arising from oversight or omission
Timing: Freely OR with appellate court’s leave if docketed
- Extraordinary relief
Grounds:
a) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect
b) Newly discovered evidence
c) Fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct by opposing party
Timing: ≤ 1 year after entry of final judgment
Grounds:
a) Void judgment
b) Judgment satisfied, released, discharged
c) Other reason justifying relief
Timing: Within reasonable time
