Anyone practicing in the federal courts would be wise to study the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ortiz v. Jordan (No. 09-737), which serves as a how-to (or perhaps a cautionary how-not-to) preserve issues for appeal.
In Ortiz , the Court considered whether a party is permitted to appeal the denial of a summary judgment motion after a full trial on the merits. The answer to this question was a unanimous no . However, a majority of the Supreme Court went one step further. In addressing an issue that neither of the parties included in their petitions for certiorari, the Supreme Court ruled that, to be preserved for appeal, defenses raised at trial must be renewed through post-trial motions under both Rule 50(a) and Rule 50(b). In making this ruling, the Supreme Court not only resolved a split in the federal courts, but also provided a roadmap for practitioners to follow if they plan to appeal adverse decisions from the trial court.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
