Post Trial Procedure Flashcards
Motions to Terminate Without Trial
- A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, motion for judgment on the pleadings, motion for summary judgment, or motion for judgment as a matter of law at the end of the plaintiff’s case are waived if the moving party proceeds with trial once the motions are denied.
- Preliminary motions are no longer relevant once there has been a full trial.
- Any appeal is based on the full trial, not the earlier motion.
New Trial
- Often made with a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, but very different.
- Grounds for new trial include:
- Errors during trial that rendered the judgment unfair;
- newly discovered evidence;
- Prejudicial misconduct by a lawyer, party, or juror; and o
- Excessive verdict and the winning party refused to accept a reduction (remittitur).
- The court must specifiy the reason(s) for granting a new trial in its order.
- Reason for granting a new trial is purely a question of law - de novo review by appellate court.
- Most grounds for new trial are within the
sound discretion of the trial court - reviewed on appeal only for abuse of discretion.
OHIO - must be made within 28 days after entry of judgement
Appeals
- Ordinarily, appeals lie only from final judgments.
- Final Judgment - Resolves ALL the claims of ALL the parties on the merits
-
Partial final judgment: the court may, by express designation, enter a final judgment on some claims.
- Such a judgment is immediately appealable.
- A judgment becomes final when entered by the clerk on the court’s docket.
- Notice of appeal must be filed in the trial court within 30 days of entry of judgment.
- A timely post-judgment motion (e.g., renewed motion for JMOL or a new trial motion) tolls the 30-day limit.
Interlocutory Orders
1. Interlocutory Orders Immediately Appealable as of Right
- Injunctions (granted or modified)
- Any order that changes or affects of property
2. Discretionary Interlocutory Appeal
- Any interlocutory order is appealable on leave of courts (appellate and trial).
- BOTH the trial and appellate courts must agree to allow the appeal.
- The trial court can issue a certificate for interlocutory appeal stating:
- That it involves a controlling questions of law; AND
- That the immediate appeal may materiall advance termination of the litigation.
- The appellate court must agree to accept the appeal
3. Collateral Order Doctrine
- Authorizes immediate appeal of orders separable from and collateral to the main suit and too important to deny immediate review
- Most likely case: The denial of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens is almost always a collateral order and immediately appealable.
4. Mandamus
- Provides for immediate appellate review of an order that is an abuse of authority
5. Class Actions
- Appellate courts have discretion to hear interlocutory appeals from orders
certifying or refusing to certify a class action.
Standards of Review
1. Matters of Law
- Appellate review is de novo.
2. Findings of Fact
- Appellate review is more limited:
- Jury verdicts must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence.
- Judge’s findings of fact must be affirmed unless clearly erroneous.
- Judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
3. Matters of Discretion
- Standard of appellate review is abuse of discretion.
- Any reasonable decision will be upheld.
Full Faith and Credit
Courts in the United States, whether state or federal, must give full faith and credit to judgments rendered by courts of other states, provided that the rendering court had rendering jurisdiction.
Effect of Former Adjudication - Intro
Exam Tip - high priority topic for the bar exam
- Preclusion consists of two doctrines:
- Claim preclusion (res judicata)
- Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel)
- Ask two questions:
- Is the claim in the second suit precluded by the prior adjudication?
- If not, is the issue in the second suit precluded by the prior adjudication?
Exam Tip - Ask these questions separately and in order
Claim Preclusion - Rule + Requirements
1. Rule
- A final judgment on the merits of a claim bars re-litigation of that claim by the same parties or those in privity with the parties.
- Why - Prevents re-litigation of every issue that was raised OR should have been raised in the first litigation
2. Three Requirements
- There must have been a final judgment on the merits in the first suit;
- The second suit must be between the same parties or their successors in interest; and
- The second suit must involve the same claim or cause of action.
Claim Preclusion - Final Judgment on the Merits
- Includes a default judgment, summary judgment, and dismissal with prejudice
- NOT necessary that there had been a trial
Claim Preclusion - Re-litigation b/t Same Parties or Their Successors in Interest
- Both parties must have been parties to the first lawsuit or successors in interest to the original parties.
- Same parties - must be same plaintiff and same defendant
Example 15: Father is criminally prosecuted by the government for failing to provide child support and is acquitted. Mother then brings a civil action for child support against the father. Is the second suit barred by claim preclusion?
Answer: No.. The first action was brought by the government, and the second by the mother. No re-litigation between the same parties.
Example 16: A person injured by a defective vehicle sues the dealer and loses. Subsequently, the injured person sues the vehicle manufacturer for the same defect. Is the second suit barred by claim preclusion?
Answer: No.. The first suit was against the dealer, and the second was against the manufacturer. No re-litigation between the same parties.
- The only “exception” is when re-litigation involves successors in interest - stands in the shoes of his or her predecessor.
- Examples of successors in interest include:
- The assignor and assignee of a claim;
- A decedent and the executor of the estate; and
- The executor of an estate and persons who claim under the will.
- Class action - each member is bound by the judgment, considered to have had their opportunity in court even if not a named representative.
Claim Preclusion - Re-litigation of the Same Claim or Cause of Action
- ALL legal theories to recover for harm arising out of a single transaction or occurrence are one claim.
- Unless state law provides otherwise, if both contract and tort theories seek redress for the same harm, they are the SAME claim.
- Installment sales - creditor must sue for all that is due at the time of the suit. All accrued debt or obligation is one claim. Creditor cannot sue for payments that are not “due and owing.” Future debts or obligations are another claim.
Example 17: A tenant is in default on the rent for three months (January, February, and March). On April 1st, the landlord brings suit but unwisely sues only for the January rent and wins. He subsequently brings a second suit to collect the February and March rent. Can he collect?
Answer: ________________. All the rent that was due when suit was brought in April is one claim, even though it involved three payments.
Example 18: Landlord sues the tenant for all the rent due and owing and gets a default judgment (final judgment on the merits). The next month, the same dispute arises and the landlord sues again, seeking to invoke claim preclusion against the tenant to preclude the tenant from defending the second suit on the ground that the premises were not habitable. Is the tenant precluded from raising that issue?
Answer: __________________________. The condition of the premises for the next month was not and could not have been litigated in the earlier suit.
- Look out for installment sales contracts that provide if a buyer misses a payment, the entire outstanding balance becomes due.
Issue Preclusion - Rule + Requirements
- The same issue of fact must arise in two suits;
- That issue must have been actually and necessarily decided in the first suit; and
- The party to be precluded must have been a party to the first suit.
Issue Preclusion - Same Issue of Fact
- It doesn’t matter if the two suits involve entirely different claims, so long as they have a factual issue in common.
Example 19: Assume that the person injured by a defective motor vehicle sues the dealer and loses. The jury found that the vehicle was not defective. Then the injured person sues the manufacturer for the same defect. Is there claim preclusion?
Answer: no. The second suit involved a different defendant and therefore a different claim.
Is there issue preclusion?
Answer: yes. The same issue was presented in both suits.
Issue Preclusion - Actually and Necessarily Decided
- Only applies to issues actually litigated; not to those that MIGHT have been litigated
- Default judgment - results in full claim preclusion, but nothing is actually litigated - no issue preclusion.
Issue Preclusion - Party to be Precluded Must Have Been a Party to the First Suit
- NO mutuality of estoppel
- The party to be precluded must have been a party to the first suit or a successor in interest.
- The party invoking preclusion need not have been a party to the prior action, nor in any way involved in the action.
- Rule at least applies to the defensive use of issue preclusion.
- Whether a succession of plaintiffs could invoke issue preclusion offensively is not clear.
Example 20: Fred and Ethel # 1. Fred and Ethel are involved in an auto accident with Mort and Myrtle. Fred sues Mort, the driver of the other car, and loses. The jury found that Mort’s vehicle was not operated negligently. Fred then sues Myrtle, the passenger in Mort’s car, claiming that she caused Mort to drive negligently. Can Myrtle preclude re-litigation of the negligence issue in the second suit?
Answer: No claim preclusion because suit against a different defendant is a different claim. But there is issue preclusion. Fred was a party to the first suit and had his day in court. Fred is precluded from re-litigating the issue of negligence.
Example 21: Fred and Ethel # 2. Fred and Ethel are involved in an auto accident with Mort and Myrtle. Fred sues Mort, the driver of the other car, and loses. The jury found that Mort’s vehicle was not operated negligently. Ethel, the passenger in Fred’s car, then sues Mort, claiming that he operated his vehicle negligently. Can Mort, who has already litigated and won this issue, preclude Ethel from re-litigating it in the second suit?
Answer: _____________________. No claim preclusion because suit by a different plaintiff is a different claim. There is no issue preclusion because Ethel (the party to be precluded) was not involved in the first suit. She has not had her day in court. Issue preclusion cannot be invoked against her.
