ADR is a key aspect of modern civil procedure, as many more claims are resolved via settlement than trial. In this episode we will examine mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation, summary jury trial, mini trial, and the sources of authority for how a trial court can order ADR upon the parties.
In re Atlantic Pipe Corporation
Issue preclusion (aka collateral estoppel) is a means by which, under certain circumstances, a party that lost on an issue in a prior case does not get the opportunity to relitigate that issue against another party. In this manner certain issues (but not necessarily entire claims) are removed from consideration in later suits.
Little v. Blue Goose Motor Co.
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
We now turn to preclusion, where prior lawsuits can remove issues or claims from relitigation. Claim preclusion (aka res judicata) operates on the principle that you only get “one bit of the apple.” A plaintiff is forced to bring all of their claims and theories of relief relating to a transaction at once, or be forever barred.
Manego v. Orleans Board of Trade
Landrigan v. City of Warwick
Our final avenue of appeal that we will examine is mandamus, where a lower court judge is forced to take certain actions. Consider a drastic remedy, it is not often granted.
Will v. United States
In re Chimenti
1292(b) of the United States Code allows another avenue of intelocutory relief. We will examine the prongs of that manner of appeal in this episode.
Cardwell v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Not all appeals have to wait until final judgment. The collateral order doctrine is one avenue of interlocutory appeal, allowing immediate review.
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
Will v. Hallock
Sell v. United States
The process of appeal is how trial decisions are reviewed, as well as the law changed if need be. In this episode we’ll examine the federal appellate system and the final judgment rule.
Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Co.
In the federal system, a jury does not have to simply return a finding for one party along with the money to be paid out (if any). Through the use of special verdicts and special interrogatories, a judge (at the request of the parties) can require the jury to walk through their reasoning step-by-step.
Whitlock v. Jackson
We conclude our look at post-trial motions by (briefly) examining a request for relief from judgment, and spending some time on remittur and additur. Remittur and additur are when a judge maintains the jury decision on liability, but modifies the amount of money awarded.
Dimick v. Schiedt
In addition to moving for judgment as a matter of law, a litigant might desire a new trial. New trials may be granted for a variety of reasons, including a judge deciding that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence. We’ll examine how motions for new trials and JMoL interact with each other.
Ahern v. Scholz