Jurisdiction over the Parties or Their Property (jop)
Download 321.23 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 49(a) General verdict w/interrogatories
- Nollenberger v. United Air
- Juror misconduct
- Allocation of burden Who has the better access to the fact in question Who is alleging something that “departs from what would be expected
- Directed Verdict
- Rogers v. Missouri
- Rule 52
- 52(a)(3) Motion for summary judgment and 12(b)(6)
- US Gypsum Co 52(a)
- Rule 61
- Courts of review will not disturb the decision of a trial court on a motion for a new trial unless clear abuse of discretion is affirmatively shown . Robb v. Hickey
- Briones v. Riviera Hotel and Casino
- Marcelli v. Walker
Verdict Rule 52 – Findings and conclusions by the Court; Judgment on Partial findings (a)(1) – the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately (b) – 28 days to file for amendment to findings of fact General verdict – grants victory to one side or the other Special verdict – a special verdict is a specific finding of fact Requires a jury to answer a series of Q’s regarding each facet of the case but not to enter a verdict stating who wins 49(a) – allows a court to order a special verdict “in the form of a special written finding on each issue of fact.” Not used often, except on the state level If the judge fails to submit a question on a specific issue of fact when he gives his list of special verdict Q’s to the jury the parties waive their right to a jury trial on that issue if they do not object before the jury retires 49(a) General verdict w/interrogatories – the judge may, instead of requiring a special verdict, require a general verdict supported by interrogatories as to specific findings of fact 49(b) Where consistent w/ verdict – if these facts are consistent with the verdict, the verdict is entered Where inconsistent w/ verdict– if the findings of fact are inconsistent with the verdict, the judge may either enter a judgment consistent with the interrogatory answers, ignoring the jury’s verdict, or he may order a new trial Where the answers are inconsistent w/ each other – Return to jury, the judge must send the case back to the jury for further deliberation Nollenberger v. United Air p.1111 - When special interrogatories are inconsistent with the general verdict, the special interrogatories control. The court cannot submit additional interrogatories after the jury has returned its verdict having answered the special interrogatories and at the same time the general verdict. If there is any way to uphold the General verdict, do so Juror misconduct – a jury verdict may be set aside, and a new trial ordered, for certain types of misconduct. (talking to a party, receiving a bribe, concealing a bias on voir dire) Traditional impeachment rule – followed in most states, jury may not impeach its own verdict (i.e. the verdict will not be set aside because of a juror’s testimony of his own or another juror’s misconduct – only evidence from a third party will suffice Fed rule – except that a juror may testify about whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the juror’s attention, or whether outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon a juror Post-trial discovery of bias – if it turns out that a juror failed to disclose information during voir dire that would have indicated bias the party may move for a new trial. In federal trials the movant must show That the juror failed to answer honestly a material question during voir dire and, That a correct response would have led to a valid challenge for cause Burden of Proof Burden of production – It can mean that unless he produces some evidence that A exists the judge must direct the jury to find that A does not exist. The party in such a situation bears the “burden of production” Burden of persuasion – if at the close of the evidence, the jury cannot decide whether A exists or not, it must find that A does not exist. Party seeking to prove A bears burden of persuasion Allocation of burden Who has the better access to the fact in question Who is alleging something that “departs from what would be expected in the light of ordinary human experience” Both burdens not always on the same party, it can shift A party has met his burden on production if He has given enough evidence to send that issue to the jury. Met burden of persuasion if Preponderance of the evidence – Produced enough evidence to lead the jury “to believe that the existence of [A] is more probable than its non-existence.” More likely than not Reeves v. Sanderson p.1085 - A prima facie case of discrimination, combined with sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to disbelieve an employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision, may be sufficient as a matter of law to sustain a jury's finding of intentional discrimination. The factfinder’s rejection of the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action does not compel judgment for the plaintiff. It is permissible for the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of discrimination from the falsity of the employer’s evaluation Although the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe Directed Verdict/Judgment as a matter of law Rule 50 In state and federal court, either party may move for a directed verdict. This takes the case away from the jury and determines the outcome as a matter of law Fed – A party may move for “judgment as a matter of law” after the other party “has been fully heard on an issue” 50(a)(1) usually at the close of the P’s case, either party may move for directed verdict after both sides have rested Standard for DV 50(a)(1) If a party has been fully heard on an issue 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 Resolve the issue against the party Grant a motion for JML against a party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue Some courts have distinguished between the amount of evidence needed to direct a verdict against the party bearing the burden of persuasion, and that needed to direct a verdict in favor of that party Stronger showing where burden against movant Denman v. Spain p.1076 – A finding of judgment notwithstanding the verdict is correct in cases where the original jury verdict is based on speculative facts. Verdicts cannot be based on possibilities Rogers v. Missouri p.1081 - When the probative facts of a case could support a verdict for either litigant, a jury must hear the case. Galloway p.1071 - Directed verdicts do not deprive litigants of their Seventh Amendment constitutional right to a jury trial. Judgment notwithstanding Verdict (JNOV) JNOV – Judges may reserve judgment on a DV motion, then if the jury decides against the movant the judge may evaluate the legal sufficiency of the evidence on a JNOV motion. This results in the entry of a judgment for the party who lost the verdict; it is a finding that the verdict had no sufficient legal basis Rule 50 – JNOV no longer exists. After jury verdict still a JML Practice unchanged. The party seeking JNOV must make a motion for that judgment before the case is submitted to a jury, must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to judgment 50(a)(2). If verdict is against the movant, the movant renews the motion. Usually entered on a claim, but JNOV/JML may be entered on a defense as well If JML granted, the court must also conditionally rule on any motion for a new trial 50(c) If the JML order is reversed on appeal, and the trial judge has conditionally granted the new trial motion, the new trial occurs automatically, unless appellate court denies 50(c)(2) If the trial judge conditionally denies the new trial motion, the original verdict is reinstated when JML is overturned on appeal Four possible outcomes: Both motions denied – appeals court may order either JML or a new trial JML granted, new trial denied – verdict winner may appeal JML granted, new trial granted – verdict winner may appeal, JML is reversible, if JML reversed, the judge’s new trial order almost always controls JML denied, new trial granted – no appeal until new trial completed Trials w/out a Jury 2 conditions to be tried w/out jury No right to a trial, or All parties have waived the right to a jury trial Trial judge the serves as both the finder of fact and decider of law Rules of evidence are officially the same in non-jury trials as in jury trials. In practice judges tend to relax the rules more when there is no jury present which could be prejudiced by the admission of evidence of dubious reliability Findings of fact – Rule 52 requires the trial court to “find the facts specially and to state its conclusions of law separately.” Roberts v. Ross – trial judge should prepare his own findings of fact and conclusions of law Judge is responsible for the document he signs The findings of fact and conclusions of law must be sufficient to indicate the bases of the trial judge’s decision Leighton p. 1119 –three purposes for Rule 52(a) for a non-jury trial, To aid the appellate court by affording it a clear understanding of the ground of the basis of the decision of the trial court To make definite just what is decided by the case to enable the application of res judicata and estoppel principles to subsequent decisions To evoke care on the part of the trial judge in ascertaining the facts. (most important) Where separate findings required – separate findings of fact and conclusions of law also required where: Requests for interlocutory injunctions are made, whether they are granted or denied; and “Judgment on partial findings” is given 52(c). If at the end of the P’s case the judge believes P has not carried his burden of proof, the judge may throw out P’s case w/out hearing defendant’s case Separate findings not required on motions 52(a)(3) Motion for summary judgment and 12(b)(6) included except one under 52(c) Judgment on partial findings If one issue is pivotal to the entire case (ex. statute of limitations) the judge may hold a “mini-trial” on that issue. If the judge then finds against the party bearing the burden of proof, the judge issues a judgment on partial findings – 52(c) Appellate review findings of fact – appellate court will generally accept the trial judge’s findings of fact against which to review the findings of law. Trial judge’s findings of fact only set aside if found to be “clearly erroneous” 52(a) Test – clearly erroneous when “although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” US Gypsum Co 52(a) Witness credibility – appellate court gives “due regard … to the opportunity of the trial judge to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Appellate courts are particularly loath to overturn trial judge’s finding of facts regarding such testimony Trial judge could judge witnesses’ credibility through observation of their demeanor at trial Standard – “When a trial judge’s finding is based on his decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, each of whom has told a coherent and facially plausible story that is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, that finding, if not internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clear error.” Anderson v. Bessemer City Exception – witness story internally inconsistent, or contradicted by documents or objective evidence Documentary evidence and inferences from undisputed facts – Anderson v. Bessemer, even where the federal district court’s findings do not rest on credibility determinations, but are based instead on physical or documentary evidence or inferences from other facts, the appeals court may not make a de novo review of the evidence. Clearly erroneous applies. 52(a) – findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous Clearly erroneous rule does not apply to conclusions of law Mixed fact and law If the trial court’s finding of fact derives from a correct rule of law, the clearly erroneous rule applies to the finding of fact If the trial court’s judgment of the facts derives from an incorrect rule of law, that finding must be reversed or remanded for new determination. The finding of fact will not be judged by clearly erroneous standard, but instead be presumed incorrect New Trial Rules 59 & 61 Trial courts in both state and Fed generally have wide discretion to grant a motion for a new trial, runs less risk of abridging the 7th amendment than does DV or JNOV Fed – different standards for new trials in jury and non-jury cases 59(a)(1) Grounds – where there has been a jury trial, the judge may order a new trial “for any reason for which a new trial has [before 1938] been granted in an action at law” in federal court 59(a)(2) – new non-jury trial – where the action was tried w/out a jury, a new trial may be granted for any of the reasons an equity court would have granted a rehearing Judges usually err on the side of admitting too much evidence. Lowers risk of reversal. If too much evidence is excluded higher probability of reversal 59(c) – when a motion for new trial is based on affidavits, they must be filed w/the motion. Opposing party 14 days to respond 59(d) – after notice and opportunity to be heard, the court may grant a timely motion for a new trial for a reason not stated in the motion. Either way the court must specify the reasons in its order Rule 61 – Harmless error – At every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party’s substantial rights. Magnani v. Trogi p.1122 – The trial judge is allowed broad discretion in granting new trials. Thiss allows the trial judge to correct errors that he or the jury might have made during the course of the trial. Courts of review will not disturb the decision of a trial court on a motion for a new trial unless clear abuse of discretion is affirmatively shown. Robb v. Hickey - Where the verdict is uncertain or ambiguous, the court will not substitute its verdict in place of it, and a new trial should be granted. The court may mold an informal verdict to render it formal in order that it may coincide with the substance of the verdict as intended by the jury, but the intent of the jury must clearly and convincingly appear in the verdict. Timely objection required for most types of error at the trial level, in order to preserve the right to cite that error on appeal as a ground for a new trial (does not apply to plain error) Common reasons for a new trial Judicial error Especially common in jury trials, where the judge believes that his errors have tainted the jury’s verdict Prejudicial conduct by a party, witness, or counsel Substantial risk of an unfair verdict Juror misconduct Evidence 606(b)(1) – juror may testify as to Whether extraneous prejudicial info was improperly brought to the juries attention Whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror Whether there was a mistake in entering the verdict onto the verdict form Verdict against the weight of evidence Minority – unlimited judicial discretion Minority – extremely strict Duk v. MGM - Where a jury is still available, a court's decision to resubmit an inconsistent verdict for clarification is within its discretion. Best for judicial economy Don’t want a compromise or quotient verdict, but these kinds of verdicts can be thrown out Aetna v. Surety – Fed standard – middle – against clear weight of the evidence, false evidence, even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of the verdict. Judge must not substitute his own judgment, it is not enough that the judge merely disagrees with the verdict, and would vote otherwise if he were a juror A federal trial judge may, in his sole discretion, set aside a jury verdict and grant a new trial where he finds the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, or based on false evidence. Excessive or inadequate verdict Damages fixed by law and verdict excessive by law or inadequate by law Where damages set by jury discretion a judge is more hesitant to set aside, but still may if completely out of line Inadequate – Damages not fixed by law, court may set aside Remittitur and Additur A judge may find the jury’s verdict excessive or inadequate, but may wish to avoid a new trial. Especially where liability is correct, but damages calculated wrong. Conditional new trial, new trial to occur unless the P agrees to a reduction of the damages to a specified amount (remitter), or (damages inadequate), the new trial to occur unless the defendant consents to raising the damages (additur). It must be consensual. Fisch v. Manger p.1144 - Trial judges may grant additurs and remittiturs when substantial justice in the original trial may be achieved instead of having to grant a new trial. Remittitur and additur serve the laudable purpose of avoiding a further trial where substantial justice may be attained on the basis of the original trial. Fed – remittitur is firmly established. SCOTUS in Dimick v. Schiedt found additur unconstitutional Some states do allow additur Calculate additur or remittitur Powers v. Allstate p.1147 – what a reasonable jury could find Remittitur test – reduce the verdict only to the highest amount the jury could properly could have awarded Remittitur not appealable Donovan v. Penn Shipping Partial new trial – may grant a new trial on specific issues Doutre v. Niec p. 1149 – The questions of liability and damages are so closely intertwined that they may not usually be separated, so that if a new trial is required on the issue of liability, the issue of damages must also be retried. In cases where liability is clear, the damages issues alone may be submitted for re-trial. Otherwise, both must be resubmitted. Damages flow from and follow liability Timeliness of requests for a New Trial Unitherm p.1150 – If you don’t make a timely motion, then you lose out Hulson p.1151 – Ignorance of the rules resulting in an agreement for unauthorized extension of time cannot serve to furnish grounds for relief New trial for mistake Clerical Mistake 60(a) May correct a clerical mistake before an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, unless the appellate court gives leave (District court has lost jurisdiction) 60(b) may be relieved for Mistake, excusable neglect Newly discovered evidence Fraud Judgment is void Judgment has been satisfied Any other reason that justifies relief 60(c) No more than a year after, does not affect finality of judgment 60(d) doesn’t limit courts power to Entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding Grant relief under 25 USC § 1655 to a defendant who was not personally notified of the action Set aside a judgment for fraud on the court Briones v. Riviera Hotel and Casino p.1152 Excusable neglect is understood to encompass situations in which the failure to comply with a filing deadline is attributable to negligence Four factors to be considered whether neglect is excusable in bankruptcy cases The danger of prejudice to the opposing party The length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings The reason for delay Whether the moving party acted in good faith New trial for newly discovered evidence Patrick v. Sedwick – p.1154 Probably change the result of the trial New discovery – must have been clearly discovered since the end of the trial; Diligence – movant must demonstrate that he was “reasonably diligent” in his search for evidence prior to and during trial, and that he could not reasonably have found the evidence in question before the trial’s end; Materiality – the evidence be material, Must not be merely cumulative or impeaching Must relate to facts which were in existence at the time of the trial Injustice – as a practical matter the motion is usually denied unless the trial judge has an abiding feeling that injustice has plainly resulted Marcelli v. Walker p.1157 – Independent actions for relief under 60(b) are reserved for those cases of injustice that, in certain instances, are deemed sufficiently gross to demand a departure from rigid adherence to the doctrine of res judicata. The elements of an independent cause of action are A judgment that should not in equity and good conscience to be enforced, A good defense to the alleged cause of action on which the judgment was based, Fraud, accident, or mistake, The absence of fault or negligence on the part of the party seeking refuge in the rule, and The absence of remedy at law. Appealability of new trial order – Fed - not appealable, because it is not a final judgment. After final judgment the new trial may be raised as an issue, so it is reviewable Directory: sites -> www.phideltaphi.org -> resource -> collection -> EA88E61A-F827-4590-985B-EC1F412EAE4E sites -> Glossary for Chapter 1 Algorithm sites -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose sites -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations sites -> Physical custody of 1033 program property accountibility form statement of Physical Custody: By signing for the below 1033 property I am a Law Enforcement Officer of the aforementioned Law Enforcement Agency sites -> Nstructions for Acquiring Excess Equipment online, through the 1033 Program sites -> Memorandum of agreement EA88E61A-F827-4590-985B-EC1F412EAE4E -> Five Juicy questions where the heck does property go upon death of decedent? Download 321.23 Kb. Share with your friends:
|