Post Trial Procedure Flashcards
Issue preclusion
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, precludes the re-litigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier claim.
The party against whom the issue is to be precluded (or one in privity with that party) must have been a party to the original action
Offensive use of collateral estoppel (i.e., use by a nonparty against a party to the original suit) is permitted.
Can a court correct clerical errors?
Rule 60(a) allows a court to correct a clerical or other mistake resulting from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may make such a correction on motion by a party or on its own initiative, with or without notice. However, once an appeal from a judgment or order has been docketed in the appellate court, such a correction can be made only with leave of the appellate court.
Motion filed when new evidence is discovered
Rule 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order for a motion filed within a reasonable time, and no later than one year following the entry of the judgment or order, for newly discovered evidence that could not have been earlier discovered with reasonable diligence.
Appealing an order for new trial
An order for a new trial is not appealable because it is not a final judgment. A party who wants to raise on appeal the grant of a new trial must wait until the new trial has occurred and resulted in a final judgment. The party may then appeal from that judgment and raise as an issue the order for the new trial
Res Judicata
The doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) provides that a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from successive litigation of an identical claim in a subsequent action.
Final judgement rule
Under the final judgment rule, a federal appellate court has jurisdiction over an appeal of a final judgment of the trial court. A final judgment is a decision on the merits that leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.
Multiple parties and the final judgment rule
Pursuant to Rule 54(b), if more than one claim is presented in a case, or if there are multiple parties, then the district court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more issues or parties, but only if the court “expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” This modifies the rule’s default position that any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all of the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all of the parties will not end the action as to any of the claims or parties, and it may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims and all of the parties’ rights and liabilities.
Are interlocutory orders directly appealable?
Federal courts of appeals may hear appeals from the final judgment of the district courts, but most interlocutory orders, such as the denial of a summary-judgment motion or a motion to dismiss, are not considered final and are therefore not immediately appealable. If a district court certifies that an immediate appeal would help to resolve an unclear interpretation of a controlling question of law, however, a court of appeals has discretion to allow the appeal if the application is made to it within 10 days after the entry of the order. But such certification must occur.
Clearly Erroneous
The appellate court must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility, and a district court’s findings of fact may not be set aside unless “clearly erroneous.”
Abuse of Discretion
The abuse of discretion standard is appropriate when reviewing a trial court’s ruling on discretionary matters, such as the admissibility of evidence, sanctions for violation of discovery rules, and the grant or denial of a motion.
De Novo
The de novo standard is appropriate when the appellate court is reviewing the trial court’s legal rulings.
Harmless Error
the “harmless error” doctrine is not a standard of review, but instead constitutes a rule that applies once the appellate court has conducted its review and found that the trial court has acted in error. Under this rule, even if the trial court has acted erroneously, the judgment is not modified or overturned if the error did not result in an incorrect judgment (i.e., the error was harmless).
