Trials Flashcards
VII Amendment
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The Seventh Amendment continues a practice from English common law of distinguishing civil claims which must be tried before a jury (absent waiver by the parties) from claims and issues that may be heard by a judge alone. It only governs federal civil courts and has no application to civil courts set up by the stateswhen those courts are hearing only disputes of state law.
Where an issue applies to combined common law and equitable proceeding, the overlapping issue must be tried by a jury.
Jury Selection
Rule 47
Jury Selection
- Court may examine or permit parties to examine
- 3 peremptory challenges allowed per §1870
- during trial or deliberation, can excuse juror for good cause
Hildago v. Fagen
Challenge to peremptory strikes in a civil suit based on Batson (which involved criminal context)
Plaintiff was Hispanic; peremptories used to strike two Hispanic jurors
Plaintiff argued: racially motivated strikes
Lawyer said he preferred younger to older and men to women and admitted to having some concerns about the struck juror being Hispanic.
Lawyer who made strike need only articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the strike; the finding of no intent to discriminate by the trial court is a question of fact, reversible only if clearly erroneous under Rule 52(a).
Motion for Judgement as a Matter of Law
Rule 50
(3 elements)
Directed Verdict
Rule 50(a)(1) directs court to grant motion for judgment as a matter of law
- result is against reason (rule 50) v “something went wrong here” (rule 59)
- if “a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the non-moving party on an issue.”
- Motion may be made before submission of the case to the jury and
- is often made by defendant at the close of plaintiff’s case and again at the close of all the evidence.
- Res judicata
- Only one ground: insufficiency of evidence
(a) Judgment as a Matter of Law.
(1) In General. If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:
(A) resolve the issue against the party; and
(B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.
(2) Motion. A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.
(b) Renewing the Motion After Trial; Alternative Motion for a New Trial. If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment—or if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged—the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on the renewed motion, the court may:
(1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict;
(2) order a new trial; or
(3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.
(c) Granting the Renewed Motion; Conditional Ruling on a Motion for a New Trial.
(1) In General. If the court grants a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, it must also conditionally rule on any motion for a new trial by determining whether a new trial should be granted if the judgment is later vacated or reversed. The court must state the grounds for conditionally granting or denying the motion for a new trial.
(2) Effect of a Conditional Ruling. Conditionally granting the motion for a new trial does not affect the judgment’s finality; if the judgment is reversed, the new trial must proceed unless the appellate court orders otherwise. If the motion for a new trial is conditionally denied, the appellee may assert error in that denial; if the judgment is reversed, the case must proceed as the appellate court orders.
(d) Time for a Losing Party’s New-Trial Motion. Any motion for a new trial under Rule 59 by a party against whom judgment as a matter of law is rendered must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.
(e) Denying the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; Reversal on Appeal. If the court denies the motion for judgment as a matter of law, the prevailing party may, as appellee, assert grounds entitling it to a new trial should the appellate court conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, it may order a new trial, direct the trial court to determine whether a new trial should be granted, or direct the entry of judgment.
Motion for New Trial
Rule 59
(1 main, 3 timing)
New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
- result is against reason (rule 50) v “something went wrong here” (rule 59)
- relief because of a mistake = no claim preclusion
- Many criteria:
- insufficient evidence
- newly discovered evidence
- question of damages +/-
- inadmissable evidence
- jury misconduct
(a) In General.
(1) Grounds for New Trial. The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues—and to any party—as follows:
(A) after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court; or
(B) after a nonjury trial, for any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.
(2) Further Action After a Nonjury Trial. After a nonjury trial, the court may, on motion for a new trial, open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and direct the entry of a new judgment.
28 days after the entry of judgement:
(b) Motion for a New Trial
(d) New Trial on the Court’s Initiative
(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment
Howard v. Wal-Mart
Grounds for new trial:
Rule 50 - insufficiency of evidence
Rule 59 - Insufficiency of evidence, excessive/inadequate damages, jury misconduct, error by the court etc.
Latino v. Kaizer
Latino and Slawinski sued City of Chicago and two offers after arrest for scalping tickets at Chicago Bulls game. Court held it was not proper for the trial judge to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial merely because the trial judge thought the officers were not telling the truth. Except in extreme cases, credibility is for the jury.
Weisgram v. Marley & Co
(1 main takeaway)
- An appellate court may direct judgment as a matter of law when it determines that evidence was erroneously admitted at trial, and the remaining evidence does not make out a sustainable case.
Plaintiff won jury verdict in products liability case; defendant unsuccessfully objected to expert testimony about a defect in heater that caused fire; defendant was unsuccessful in getting judgment as a matter of law or a new trial motion. 8th Cir held that plaintiff’s expert evidence was inadmissible. Without that evidence, a rational factfinder could not find for plaintiff. 8th Cir. determined that it could enter judgment on its own and did not have to remand so district court could decide between judgment as a matter of law or new trial.
Supreme Court held that if the appellate court decides that the district court is in best position to rule on judgment as a matter of law v. new trial, it should send it back; but the court of appeals can decide issue itself.
Rule 12(b)(6)
(6 elements)
Failure to state a claim - does this case belong in the litigation stream at all?
- Does not look at evidence.
- Looks at the face of the complaint. Test: TWIQBAL
- Ignores conclusions of law and looks only at allegations of fact.
- The facts alleged must support a plausible claim (not just possible).
- To determine plausibility, judge uses own experience and common sense.
- Can dismiss with/out prejudice/leave to amend.
Motion for Summary Judgement
ΣJ
Rule 56
(4 elements)
Summary Judgement (courts discretion)
- Weed out cases in which we do not need a trial.
-
Court looks at evidence. Evidence supplied by parties in written form. Materials executed under oath.
- affidavits
- declarations
- depositions
- answers to interrogatories
- Admissions
- If Δ fails to deny something in the pleadings
- Must show two things:
- No genuine dispute on a material fact.
- She is entitled to judgement as a matter of law.
Judgement on Multiple CLAIMS/PARTIES
Rule 54(b)
(4 elements)
(b) Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties.
- When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—
- or when multiple parties are involved,
- the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.
- Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.
Interlocutory Decisions
28 USC §1292
Interlocutory Decisions
Basically an immediate appeal during trial that does not delay proceedings unless judge approves.
(a) (1) - courts of appeals have JD over orders about injunctions (granting/denying etc)
(b) - Certification - judge makes non-appealable order but believes allowing appeal would advance litigation (controlling question of law), he can certify appeal and court of appeals can decide to hear it immediately.
Mullinex Chart
Assault: A v B
Step 1: What do you have to produce with motion for ΣJ?
- A moves: Evidence (π rarely wins ΣJ)
- B moves: Evidence - point to insufficiency of evidence in the record
Step 2: What do you produce in response?
- B opposes: Evidence - genuine issue of material fact. Rule 56(a)(2)
- A opposes: Evidence - Rule 56(d)(2)
Step 3: Is there an issue of material fact for trial?
Peremptory Challenges
- Counsel gets 3, do not need cause unless Batson discrimination.
- Dismissal with cause if juror works for GM and GM is a party.
