1 / 18

Litigation Activity Line

Litigation Activity Line. Overview of Introductory Material. Areas to be Covered. Pleadings & Motions Discovery Pre-trial Adjudication Trial Post-Trial Limits on Subsequent Litigation. PLEADINGS & MOTIONS. COMPLAINT (Rule 8) PRE- ANSWER MOTIONS (Rule 12) ANSWER (Rule 5 & Rule 8)

ron
Télécharger la présentation

Litigation Activity Line

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Litigation Activity Line Overview of Introductory Material Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  2. Areas to be Covered • Pleadings & Motions • Discovery • Pre-trial Adjudication • Trial • Post-Trial • Limits on Subsequent Litigation Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  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) Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  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 Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  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 Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  6. TRIAL • JUDGE VS JURY TRIAL • ANATOMY OF A TRIAL • BURDENS OF PROOF, PERSUASION & PRODUCTION • DIRECTED VERDICT (JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW) Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  7. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL • Selection of trial date • Jury selection (voir dire / peremptory challenges) • Opening statement by P’s atty • Opening statement by D’s atty (optional) • P’s atty presents P’s case-in chief (calls and conducts direct examination of witnesses) • D’s atty cross examines P’s witnesses • There may be redirect / recross examination of witnesses Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  8. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL (con’t) • P rests her case • D’s atty may move for judgment as a matter of law (directed verdict) • Opening statement by D’s atty (optional) • D’s atty presents D’s case-in-chief (calls and conducts direct examination of witnesses) • P’s atty cross-examines D’s witnesses • There may be redirect / recross examination of witnesses • D rests his case • P’s atty may move for judgment as a matter of law (directed verdict) Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  9. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL (con’t) • Both parties have an opportunity to rebut their opponent’s case • Both parties rest their case • Either party may move for judgment as a matter of law (directed verdict) • P’s atty presents closing arguments (summation) • D’s atty presents closing arguments (summation) • Judge instructs / charges jury Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  10. ANATOMY OF A TRIAL (con’t) • Jury retires to deliberate • Jury returns with a verdict • Jury is dismissed Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  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) Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  12. RELEVANCE OF JUDGMENT TO SUBSEQUENT LITIGATION • FORMER ADJUDICATION • CLAIM PRECLUSION (RES JUDICATA) • ISSUE PRECLUSION (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL) Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  13. RUSH V. CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS • Action 1: P v. City (Negligence claim: property damage) Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  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) Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  15. RUSH V. CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS • QUERY: IS IT THE SAME CLAIM? • QUERY: ARE THEY THE SAME ISSUES? • WHAT ARE THE PARTIES ARGUING? Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  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. Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  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 Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

  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? Prof. Washington Civ. Pro. Spr. 2006

More Related