Civil Procedure II
Archived Posts from this Category
Civil Procedure II #24: Alternative Dispute Resolution Wednesday, Jul 5 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 3:20 am
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
Civil Procedure II #23: Issue Preclusion (aka Collateral Estoppel) Tuesday, Jun 27 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:14 pm
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
Civil Procedure II #22 Claim Preclusion (aka Res Judicata) Tuesday, Jun 27 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:11 pm
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
Civil Procedure II #21: Mandamus Tuesday, Jun 27 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:08 pm
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
Civil Procedure II #20: Appeal Under USC 1292(b) Tuesday, Jun 27 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:06 pm
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.
USC 1292(b)
Civil Procedure II #19: Collateral Order Doctrine Tuesday, Jun 27 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:02 pm
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
Civil Procedure II #18: Introduction to Appeals Monday, Jun 5 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 3:00 am
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.
USC 1291
Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Co.
Civil Procedure II #17: Special Verdicts Monday, Jun 5 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:55 am
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.
Rule 49
Whitlock v. Jackson
Civil Procedure II #16: Rule 60 / Remittur and Additur Monday, Jun 5 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:45 am
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.
Rule 60(b)
Dimick v. Schiedt
Civil Procedure II #15: Motion for New Trial / JMoL Monday, Jun 5 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:42 am
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.
Rule 59
Ahern v. Scholz