Appellate Review (Module 13) Flashcards
(14 cards)
Final Judgment Rule*
The losing party has a right to appeal if the court’s order is a final judgment.
* A final judgment is one that determines the merits of the entire case.
* To determine whether an order is a final judgment, ask “after making the ruling”: Does the trial court have anything left to do on the merits of the case? If the answer is “yes,” it is not a final judgment but rather an “interlocutory order.” If the answer is “no,” the judgment is final.
* Remand orders, with some minor nontestable exceptions, are not reviewable on appeal.
* Denial of SJ is not a final judgment (Not Appealable)
* Granting of a new trial is not a final judgment (Not Appealable)
Notice of Appeal
- Filed with the district court
- within 30 days after entry of the judgment that is being appealed.**
Interlocutory Appeals of Injunctions as of Right (Interlocutory Appeals*)
- Orders related to injunctions may be appealed
- TRO is not an injunction (Can be if extended beyond 28 days)
Interlocutory Appeals Act (Interlocutory Appeals)
Allows for appeal of nonfinal order if:
1. Trial judge certifies controlling issue of law
2. Substantial ground for differing opinions
3. Court of Appeals agrees to hear it
“Collateral Order” Doctrine
The appellate court has discretion to an appeal on an issue if that issue:
* Is distinct from the merits of the case
* Involves an important legal question AND
* Is essentially unreviewable if parties await a final judgment
Multiple Claims or Parties
- Judge wraps up case as to some claims or parties
- District court may expressly direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more of them
- Not a final order if there are other claims or parties
- Court may direct entry of final judgment and expressly find no just reason to delay appeal
Class Action (Appeals)
- A court of appeals has discretion to review an order granting or denying certification of a class action.
- The party seeking review must do so at the court of appeals within 14 days of order.
- An appeal does not stay the proceedings at district court unless the court of appeals or district court says so.
Extraordinary Writ (Mandamus or Prohibition)
- An extraordinary writ of mandamus or prohibition is an original proceeding in the court of appeals to compel the district judge to make or vacate a particular order.
- The writ is not a substitute for appeal. It is available only if the district court is violating a clear legal duty.
Question of Law (Standard of Review)
De Novo: No deference given to trial judge
* (If you think about it, the court of appeals knows “the law” as much as the district court judge.) Included is when a judge gives a jury instruction that summarizes a question of law.
* Content of jury instruction is a question of law
Question of Fact in Bench Trial (Standard of Review)
“Clearly erroneous” standard used for judge’s determinations of fact
Review of Question of Fact in Jury Trial (Standard of Review)
Affirmed unless reasonable people could not have made the finding
Review of Discretionary Matters (Standard of Review)
The court of appeals will affirm unless the district court judge abused her discretion.
* This is a deferential standard. A court of appeals judge might not agree with the district court judge’s decision, but so long as what the district court judge did was “in the ballpark,” that decision must be affirmed.
* Decision of whether to give a particular jury instruction is discretionary
Harmless Error
Not every error (even an error of law) requires reversal on appeal.
* No reversal is required if the error is harmless; that is, it did not affect the outcome of the case.
A woman sued her employer for sexual harassment. At the close of the trial, the employer made a motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the woman’s evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of her claim. The court denied the motion.
When the jury returned a verdict in favor of the woman, the employer renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law. In addition to the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, the employer also moved for a new trial, asserting that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court denied both motions.
If the employer appeals the denials of both the renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law and the motion for a new trial, what is the appropriate standard of review?
When an appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (including a renewed one), it employs a de novo standard. It does so because the issue is one of law. In contrast, when an appellate court reviews a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial, it employs a more deferential standard, reversing the trial court’s denial only when there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Note that when a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial are made in the alternative and the renewed motion is granted, the court rules hypothetically on the new trial motion so that no remand is required if the ruling on the judgment as a matter of law is subsequently reversed on appeal.
