Term
| DiMichel v. South Buffalo Railway Co. |
|
Definition
| Holding: A plaintiff is entitled to obtain, by discovery, any surveillance film taken of him that a defendant intends to use at trial |
|
|
Term
| Kelly v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. |
|
Definition
| Holding: Interrogatories are proper that are relevant to an issue in the action, seek unprivileged information and information that would also be admissible as evidence, but do not seek discovery, the manner whereby the opponent’s case is to be established, evidence that relates exclusively to his case, nor what his witnesses will testify |
|
|
Term
| Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons |
|
Definition
| Holding: A motion to limit discovery under Rule 26(c) should not be granted where the party seeking discovery would incur hardship without the material sought, and the party against whom discovery is sought would suffer hardship if forced to produce the material sought, if the competing interests can be served with minimal damage to either |
|
|
Term
| Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart |
|
Definition
| Holding: A protective order in a discovery matter ordering a newspaper not to publish discovered information does not violate the First Amendment |
|
|
Term
| Cummings v. General Motors Corp. |
|
Definition
| Holding: Federal Rule 26, as amended in 2000, does not require disclosure of relevant evidence that a party does not intend to use at trial |
|
|
Term
| Polycast Technology Corp. v. Uniroyal, Inc. |
|
Definition
| Holding: A non-party witness should be ordered to be deposed if his testimony is relevant and not duplicative of other witnesses’ testimony |
|
|
Term
| In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litigation |
|
Definition
| Holding: An international company should be compelled to answer interrogatories, despite its claims that the requested information is outside its control, if the company still has plausible avenues for acquiring the requested information and if other typical factors favoring compelling discovery from an international litigant are present |
|
|
Term
| In re Convergent Technologies Securities Litigation |
|
Definition
| Holding: The pretrial discovery process should be self-executing and have minimum judicial intervention |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: 1) Rule 35 (the rule that provides for physical and mental examinations of parties) is applicable to defendants as well as plaintiffs; 2) Although the person to be examined under Rule 35 must be a party in the action, he need not be an opposing party vis-à-vis the movant; 3) Under Rule 35, a person who moves for a mental or physical examination of a party who has not asserted his mental or physical condition either in support of or in defense of a claim, must affirmatively show that the condition sought to be examined is really in controversy and that good cause exists for the particular examination requested |
|
|
Term
| In re Petition of Sheila Roberts Ford |
|
Definition
| Holding: Federal Rule 27 does not permit a pre-complaint deposition without a showing that the deposition is necessary for perpetuating the witness’s testimony |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: Material obtained by counsel in preparation for litigation is the work product of the lawyer, and while such material is not protected by the attorney-client privilege, it is not discoverable on mere demand without a showing of necessity or justification |
|
|
Term
| Upjohn Co. v. United States |
|
Definition
| Holding: (1) The attorney client privilege extends to communications between a corporation’s attorneys and nonmangerial corporate employees, and (2) Rule 26 applies to (and especially protects) notes of oral statements by witnesses, and great need must be shown for their disclosure |
|
|
Term
| Krisa v. Equitable Life Assurance Society |
|
Definition
| Holding: Core work product generated by an attorney is shielded from discovery even if disclosed to an expert (minority rule) |
|
|
Term
| Battle v. Memorial Hospital at Gulfport |
|
Definition
| Holding: 1) A trial judge should admit a video deposition as evidence at trial if the witness is unavailable and the parties objecting to the video all had the same motive for questioning the witness during the deposition that they have for questioning him at trial; 2) A trial court is well within its discretion to prohibit live testimony, in favor of testimony by video deposition, if the witness is unavailable and the offering party’s own conduct caused the other side to incur the expense of the witness’s testimony by video deposition |
|
|
Term
| Cine Forty-Second Street Theatre v. Allied Artists Pictures |
|
Definition
| Holding: A grossly negligent failure to obey an order compelling discovery is sufficient to justify the severest disciplinary measures available under Rule 37 |
|
|
Term
| Velez v. Awning Windows, Inc. |
|
Definition
| Holding: A trial judge’s case-management authority under Rule 16 authorizes such as drastic sanctions as entry of judgment and refusal to dismiss claims for repeated failures to comply with court-ordered pretrial filing deadlines |
|
|
Term
| G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corporation |
|
Definition
| Holding: Federal district court can order litigants – even those represented by counsel – to appear before it in person at a pretrial conference for the purpose of discussing the posture and settlement of the litigants’ case |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: Although the 1789 Rules of Decision Act left federal courts unfettered to apply their own rules of procedure in common law actions brought in federal court, state law governs substantive issues. State law includes not only statutory law, but case law as well |
|
|
Term
| Guaranty Trust Co. v. York |
|
Definition
| Holding: Where a state statute that would completely bar recovery in state court has significant effect on the outcome-determination of the action, even though the suit is brought in equity, the federal court is bound by the state law |
|
|
Term
| Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. |
|
Definition
| Holding: The Erie doctrine requires that federal courts in diversity cases respect definitions of rights and obligations created by state courts, but state laws cannot alter the essential characteristics and functions of the federal courts, and the jury function is such an essential function (provided for in the Seventh Amendment) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: The Erie doctrine mandates that federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law, but, where matters fall roughly between the two and are rationally capable of classification as either, the Constitution grants the federal court system the power to regulate their practice and pleading (procedure) |
|
|
Term
| Walker v. Armco Steel Corp. |
|
Definition
| Holding: In diversity actions, Rule 3 (stating that an action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court) governs the date from which timing requirements of the Federal Rules begin to run, but does not affect state statutes of limitations |
|
|
Term
| Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. |
|
Definition
| Holding: In a federal diversity suit, federal rules, not state rules, should govern questions of venue |
|
|
Term
| Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. |
|
Definition
| Holding: The Seventh Amendment does not preclude appellate review of a trial judge’s denial of a motion to set aside a jury verdict as excessive |
|
|
Term
| Mason v. American Emery Wheel Works |
|
Definition
| Holding: A state supreme court ruling on an issue need not be followed by a federal court sitting in diversity if that ruling has lost its vitality |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: Where no genuine issue as to any material fact remains, the court may grant summary judgment if the information presented would entitle one of the parties to a directed verdict |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: Summary judgment must be entered against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish of an element to his case and on which he bears the burden of proof at trial |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: If a jury verdict for plaintiff rests on conjecture rather than legally sufficient evidence, the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict will be granted |
|
|
Term
| Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Yeats |
|
Definition
| Holding: 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 (1) contrary to the clear weight of evidence, or (2) based on false evidence |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: A default judgment may not be entered against a defendant who has filed an answer |
|
|
Term
| Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover |
|
Definition
| Holding: Only under the most imperative circumstances can the right to a jury trial of legal issues be lost through prior determination of equitable claims, and in view of the flexible procedures of the federal rules, the Supreme Court cannot now anticipate such circumstances |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: The Seventh Amendment of the Constitution applies to actions enforcing statutory rights and requires a jury trial on demand if the statute creates legal rights and remedies enforceable in an action for damages in the ordinary courts of law |
|
|
Term
| Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local 391 v. Terry |
|
Definition
| Holding: A plaintiff in an action against a union for breach of duty of fair representation is entitled to a jury |
|
|
Term
| Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. |
|
Definition
| Holding: Interpretation and construction of the scope of a patent claim is a matter of law and should be determined by the judge, not the jury |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: Disqualification for bias or prejudice extends not only to the parties personally, but also to the subject matter of the litigation. But to disqualify, it must appear that the state of mind of the juror leads to the natural inference that she will not or did not act with impartiality |
|
|
Term
| Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc. |
|
Definition
| Holding: Race may not be used as a basis for preemptory challenges in a civil trial |
|
|
Term
| Kennedy v. Southern California Edison Co. |
|
Definition
| Holding: Where an instruction would be beneficial to the jury’s proper determination of the case, the court may not merely refuse a requested instruction, but instead has a duty to frame the instruction properly and give it to the jury |
|
|
Term
| Securities and Exchange Commission v. Koenig |
|
Definition
| Holding: A judge may allow a jury to ask questions during a trial |
|
|
Term
| Nollenberger v. United Air Lines, Inc. |
|
Definition
| Holding: When the jury’s answers to special interrogatories are consistent with one another, but inconsistent with the general verdict, the answers to the special interrogatories will control |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: The trial court judge should prepare his own findings of fact and conclusions at law |
|
|
Term
| Plummer v. Springfield Terminal Railway Company |
|
Definition
| Holding: Juror testimony regarding alleged clerical error, such as announcing verdict different from that agreed upon, does not challenge validity of verdict or deliberation or mental processes and, therefore, is not subject to rule of evidence prohibiting juror from testifying about jury's deliberations or juror's mental processes when questioned about validity of verdict |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: The trial judge in his discretion may grant a new trial when the verdict is not clear |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: Where the verdict is uncertain or ambiguous, the court will not substitute its verdict in place of, and a new trial should be granted |
|
|
Term
| Duk v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. |
|
Definition
| Holding: Where the jury is still available, a court’s decision to resubmit an inconsistent verdict for clarification is within its discretion |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: It is within the discretion of the trial judge in state court to employ the practices of remittitur and additur, by which the denial of one part’s motion for a new trial in condition upon the opposing party’s consent to a reduction or increase in the amount of damages awarded |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: The question 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 |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: Independent actions for relief under Rule 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 |
|
|
Term
| Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel |
|
Definition
| Holding: The granting of partial summary judgment as to liability only is not appealable under 28 U.S. 1291 |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: If a claim under the Federal Torts Claims Act is dismissed on the grounds that it is covered by one of the Act’s exceptions to the waiver of sovereign immunity, and a federal district court denies a motion of the individual federal agents to dismiss a subsequent suit brought against them, the federal appeals court does not have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to hear an appeal of the district court’s order |
|
|
Term
| Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. |
|
Definition
| Holding: To prevent irreparable injury to parties involved, an appeal may be taken prior to trial, on issues not “finally decided,” if (1) the trial judge, in his discretion, certifies the case to the appellate court, (2) on a “controlling question of law,” and (3) the appellate court permits the appeal |
|
|
Term
| La Buy v. Howes Leather Co. |
|
Definition
| Holding: A court of appeals has the discretionary power, in exception cases, to review interlocutory orders of a lower federal court by a writ of mandamus |
|
|
Term
| Atlantic City Electric Co. v. General Electric Co. |
|
Definition
| Holding: Pretrial appeal should only be granted on interlocutory orders that are not otherwise appealable from an adverse trial judgment |
|
|
Term
| J.F. White Contracting Co. v. New England Tank Industries of New Hampshire, Inc. |
|
Definition
| Holding: An appellate court may not consider on appeal an issue not raised in the pleadings or raised at the trial level |
|
|
Term
| Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co. |
|
Definition
| Holding: A party may not appeal from judgment or decree in his favor for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous, which are not necessary to obtain the decree. However, where the finding is necessary to the decision, the defendant may appeal to have this portion of the decree eliminated |
|
|
Term
| International Ore & Fertilizer Corp. v. SGS Control Services, Inc. |
|
Definition
| Holding: A federal appeals court can decide an issue that an Appellee fails to raise in a cross-appeal |
|
|
Term
| Kansas City Royals v. New York Yankees |
|
Definition
| Holding: Umpire’s decision to end game due to pine tar found in bat goes against the intent and spirit of the rules |
|
|
Term
| Corcoran v. City of Chicago |
|
Definition
| Holding: Statutory authority that permits appellate courts to set aside verdicts on the grounds that the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence is neither unconstitutional nor against the practice at common law |
|
|
Term
| Pullman-Standard v. Swint |
|
Definition
| Holding: A federal court of appeals is bound to follow a district court’s factual determination unless the determinations are clearly erroneous |
|
|
Term
| Rush v. City of Maple Heights |
|
Definition
| Holding: Whether or not injuries to both person and property resulting from the same wrongful act are to be treated as injuries to separate rights or as separate items of damage, a plaintiff may maintain only one lawsuit to enforce his rights existing at the time such action is commenced |
|
|
Term
| Mathews v. New York Racing Association, Inc. |
|
Definition
| Holding: The doctrine of res judicata operates as a bar to subsequent suits involving the same parties, or those in privity with them, based on a claim which has once reached a judgment on the merits |
|
|
Term
| Jones v. Morris Plan Bank of Portsmouth |
|
Definition
| Holding: If a transaction is represented by a single and indivisible contract and the breach gives rise to a single cause of action, it cannot be split into distinct parts and separate actions |
|
|
Term
| Mitchell v. Federal Intermediate Credit Bank |
|
Definition
| Holding: A defendant may not split his cause of action against a plaintiff using part of it as a defense to the first action and saving the remainder for a separate affirmative suit |
|
|
Term
| Cromwell v. County of Sac |
|
Definition
| Holding: A judgment estops further action not only as to every ground of recovery or defense actually presented in an action, but also as to every ground which might have been presented when the subsequent action involves the same demand or claim in controversy, but where that subsequent action between the same parties is instituted upon a different claim or demand, the prior judgment operates as an estoppel only as to matters actually controverted, the determination of which were essential to the final verdict |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: It is well-settled that a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction upon a question directly involved in one suit is conclusive as to that question in another suit between the same parties, where it can be established that the precise question was raised and determined in the prior suit |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Holding: It is the judgment, and not the jury verdict or conclusions of fact, filed by a trial court which constitutes the collateral estoppel, and a finding of fact by a jury or a court which does not become the basis or one of the grounds of the judgment rendered is not conclusive against either party to the suit |
|
|
Term
| Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen |
|
Definition
| Holding: Where two cases involve taxes in different taxable years, collateral estoppel will be confined to situations where the matter raised in the second suit is identical in all respects with that decided in the first proceeding and where the controlling facts and applicable legal rules remain unchanged |
|
|
Term
| Hanover Logansport, Inc v. Robert C. Anderson, Inc. |
|
Definition
| Holding: A party who agrees to a consent decree may not unilaterally reserve a cause of action for further litigation |
|
|
Term
| Holmberg v. State, Division of Risk Management |
|
Definition
| Holding: Litigation conducted before one agency or official is generally binding on another agency or official of the same government because officers of the same government are in privity with each other |
|
|
Term
| Bernhard v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass’n. |
|
Definition
| Holding: In California and a minority of jurisdictions, a judgment in the first action may be asserted as a defense in a later action by one who was neither a privy with a party, nor an actual party, in the first suit – so long as the party against whom the judgment was raised was a party or a privy with a party in the first suit |
|
|
Term
| Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore |
|
Definition
| Holding: A litigant who was not a party to a prior judgment is not per se precluded from using that judgment “offensively” to prevent a defendant from relitigating issues resolved in that earlier equitable proceeding |
|
|
