Entrepreneur’s Guide to Litigation – Blog Series: Appeal Process

July 15, 2011

By: Brandon T. Flugaur 

An appeal allows a party to have its case reviewed by a higher court, but it is not a chance for the party to fully re-try its case. In fact, a common litigation maxim is: if you want to win on appeal, win at trial.

While in certain situations a party may appeal a ruling by the trial court while a case is pending, generally a party files an appeal after a final judgment has been entered in the case. As outlined in previous sections of this series, a final judgment is entered after a party wins at the motion to dismiss stage, summary judgment or after trial. After a final judgment is entered, the party seeking to appeal faces strict time limits within which the party must file a notice of appeal. The rules governing the appeal procedure vary depending on whether the case is a state or federal court action. In state court, an appeal is filed with an intermediate appellate court with jurisdiction over the state trial court. In federal court the appeal is filed in the Circuit Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over the federal district (trial) court.

Once the appeal process has begun, the non-prevailing party under the final judgment files the initial appeal brief and is known as the appellant. The other party, referred to as the appellee, then files a response brief. Depending on the procedure of the particular appellate court, the appellant may then have the opportunity to file a reply brief. In its appeal brief, an appellant sets out the legal issues or errors that it believes were made by the trial court.

The role of appellate courts is to review legal issues, meaning the application of legal rules to a set of facts. Except in rare situations, appeals courts will not address issues of fact. A common example that illustrates the distinction: an appeals court will review whether the judge, under the rules of evidence, properly allowed certain testimony during the trial, but it will not review whether the witness’s testimony was credible. The finder-of-fact at trial, meaning either the trial judge or jury, actually sees the live testimony and presentation of other evidence and is therefore best suited to assess the credibility of witnesses. Appellate courts give considerable deference to the factual determinations made by the judge or jury below and instead focus on the questions of law presented in the case. When a case is appealed from a decision granting summary judgment, the trial court below has determined that there are no genuine factual issues in dispute. In these instances, the appellate court frequently does not give deference to the trial court’s decision.

An appeal may be decided solely on the written briefs submitted by the parties. Some appellate courts, especially supreme courts, also permit oral arguments by counsel. During oral arguments each party presents legal arguments and responds to questions from the panel of appellate judges deciding the case. Although the legal issues are often extensively argued in the written briefs, appellate judges place great emphasis on oral argument because it gives the judges the opportunity to challenge those arguments and get clarification on key points. After the briefing and oral argument stage, the appellate court will issue a written decision which outlines the court’s legal reasoning and, if necessary, directs any further action to be taken in the case.

Generally speaking, parties in state or federal court have the right to an appeal before an intermediate appellate court. An appeal to a state supreme court or the U.S. Supreme Court, however, is only granted if that high court chooses to hear the case. Of all the potential appeals submitted to state supreme courts or the U.S. Supreme Court, only a very select few are granted. The appeals chosen by those high courts typically involve significant legal issues that implicate broader public concerns. Thus, while an appeal affords a party another opportunity for relief, the scope and likelihood of that relief is limited by the purpose and function of appellate courts.

To view the next blog in this series, click here.


Entrepreneur’s Guide to Litigation – Blog Series: Trial

July 14, 2011

By: Brandon T. Flugaur

A trial gives both parties the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments before a judge, and sometimes a jury, for a determination of the issues of the case. In a trial with a jury the judge makes determinations of legal rulings, which guide the presentation of evidence, while the jury makes the findings of the facts in the case. In a trial to the court, without a jury present, the judge occupies both of these roles.

Before a trial begins a jury is selected from a larger panel of jurors called for jury duty. During the selection process the judge will address several questions to the panel and a number of jurors will be struck for cause, often due to their relationship to the parties or witnesses, or for past experiences that may disqualify them. In some jurisdictions the judge will allow counsel for each party to question witnesses in what is known as the “voir dire” procedure. Counsel for each party then has the opportunity to strike, without providing a reason, a limited number of jurors from the jury panel, subject to certain restrictions under the law.

After the jury is selected the trial begins with both parties offering opening statements. Typically the opening statements set out the roadmap of the party’s case, providing a preview to the jury of who the party will call to testify and what evidence will be presented.

After the opening statement the parties begin the presentation of their case-in-chief. Generally the plaintiff is the first to present its case. Witnesses are called to the witness stand and provide testimony in response to the party’s questioning through direct-examination. After the direct examination the opposing counsel has the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Following this, the judge may allow re-direct and re-cross, but limited to the issues raised in the previous line of questioning. During the questioning the judge will rule on counsel’s objections concerning the propriety of questions or the admissibility of testimony under the rules of evidence. Often, before trial, the judge will have ruled on the admissibility of important pieces of testimony or evidence after considering written and oral arguments from the parties.

After both sides have presented their case-in-chief, counsel for each party presents closing arguments to the jury. Often, due to scheduling constraints of witnesses, the testimony during the trial will not be presented in perfect logical or chronological order. During closing arguments counsel will pull together all of the separate pieces of evidence and testimony from the witnesses and provide a coherent presentation of the party’s side of the dispute.

After closing arguments the judge will provide lengthy instructions to the jury to guide them during their deliberations. These include standard instructions regarding the elements of the causes of action, the admissible evidence and other legal standards that have been developed through statutes or other law. Often the case will involve non-standard legal issues as well. For these issues, counsel for the parties will submit proposed jury instructions and the judge will determine the final instructions presented to the jury. After the instructions, the jury is sent to deliberate on the merits of the case and return a verdict.

While the trial is not the final stage in the litigation process – appeal will be covered in the following section in this series – it is the stage providing the parties with the fullest opportunity to present their evidence and argument on the merits of the case.

To view the next blog in this series, click here.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers