Litigation Activity Line - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 18
About This Presentation
Title:

Litigation Activity Line

Description:

AMENDMENTS (Rule 15(a), 15(b) & 15(c)) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ... Jury selection (voir dire / peremptory challenges) Opening statement by P's atty. Opening ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:38
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 19
Provided by: tanyabwa
Learn more at: https://law.gsu.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Litigation Activity Line


1
Litigation Activity Line
  • Overview of Introductory Material

2
Areas to be Covered
  • Pleadings Motions
  • Discovery
  • Pre-trial Adjudication
  • Trial
  • Post-Trial
  • Limits on Subsequent Litigation

3
PLEADINGS MOTIONS
  • COMPLAINT (Rule 8)
  • PRE- ANSWER MOTIONS (Rule 12)
  • ANSWER (Rule 5 Rule 8)
  • AMENDMENTS (Rule 15(a), 15(b) 15(c))
  • STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
  • JOINDER (Rules 13, 14, 19, 20, 23 24)

4
DISCOVERY
  • INITIAL REQUIRED DISCLOSURES
  • ADMISSIONS
  • INTERROGATORIES
  • DEPOSITIONS
  • MENTAL / PHYSICAL EXAMS
  • REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
  • SUBPOENAS
  • PROTECTIVE ORDER
  • MOTION TO COMPEL
  • PRIVILEGE
  • ATTY WORK PRODUCT
  • INFORMAL FACT INVESTIGATION

5
PRE-TRIAL ADJUDICATION
  • SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Rule 56)
  • DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Rule 55)
  • VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL (Rule 41(a))
  • INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL (Rule 41(b))
  • NEGOTIATION AND SETTLEMENT

6
TRIAL
  • JUDGE VS JURY TRIAL
  • ANATOMY OF A TRIAL
  • BURDENS OF PROOF, PERSUASION PRODUCTION
  • DIRECTED VERDICT (JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW)

7
  • ANATOMY OF A TRIAL
  • Selection of trial date
  • Jury selection (voir dire / peremptory
    challenges)
  • Opening statement by Ps atty
  • Opening statement by Ds atty (optional)
  • Ps atty presents Ps case-in chief (calls and
    conducts direct examination of witnesses)
  • Ds atty cross examines Ps witnesses
  • There may be redirect / recross examination of
    witnesses

8
  • ANATOMY OF A TRIAL (cont)
  • P rests her case
  • Ds atty may move for judgment as a matter of law
    (directed verdict)
  • Opening statement by Ds atty (optional)
  • Ds atty presents Ds case-in-chief (calls and
    conducts direct examination of witnesses)
  • Ps atty cross-examines Ds witnesses
  • There may be redirect / recross examination of
    witnesses
  • D rests his case
  • Ps atty may move for judgment as a matter of law
    (directed verdict)

9
  • ANATOMY OF A TRIAL (cont)
  • Both parties have an opportunity to rebut their
    opponents case
  • Both parties rest their case
  • Either party may move for judgment as a matter of
    law (directed verdict)
  • Ps atty presents closing arguments (summation)
  • Ds atty presents closing arguments (summation)
  • Judge instructs / charges jury

10
  • ANATOMY OF A TRIAL (cont)
  • Jury retires to deliberate
  • Jury returns with a verdict
  • Jury is dismissed

11
POST TRIAL
  • JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (50(b) JUDGMENT NOT
    WITHSTANDING THE VERDICT)
  • NEW TRIAL (59)
  • APPEAL
  • SET ASIDE JUDGMENT (60(B))
  • FINALITY (FINAL JUDGMENT RULE)

12
RELEVANCE OF JUDGMENT TO SUBSEQUENT LITIGATION
  • FORMER ADJUDICATION
  • CLAIM PRECLUSION (RES JUDICATA)
  • ISSUE PRECLUSION (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL)

13
RUSH V. CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS
  • Action 1 P v. City (Negligence claim property
    damage)

14
RUSH V. CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS
  • Action 1 P v. City (Negligence claim property
    damage)
  • Action 2 P v. City (Negligence claim personal
    injuries)

15
RUSH V. CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS
  • QUERY IS IT THE SAME CLAIM?
  • QUERY ARE THEY THE SAME ISSUES?
  • WHAT ARE THE PARTIES ARGUING?

16
RUSH V. CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS
  • ISSUE PRECLUSION P asserts that issues of
    negligence and proximate causation decided in the
    first case should preclude reconsideration of
    those issues in the second case, which
    essentially limits the issues to be decided in
    the second case to that of damages.

17
RUSH V. CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS
  • CLAIM PRECLUSION The City asserts that the
    negligence claim asserted in the first case
    should preclude the negligence claim asserted in
    the second action b/c it has already been
    litigated

18
FINAL JUDGMENT?
  • Trial court dismissal for lack of subject matter
    jurisdiction?
  • Trial court refusal to grant dismissal for lack
    of subject matter jurisdiction?
  • Trial court denying a 12(b)(6) motion?
  • Trial court granting a 12(b)(6) motion?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com