Judges are free to go back and revisit their interlocutory rulings without being asked, the state Supreme Court said in upholding a trial judge who had second thoughts about letting out five defendants on summary judgment and vacated the dismissals 11 months later.
The “entitlement to change a prior ruling in the interests of justice is what distinguishes an interlocutory order from a final judgment,” wrote Justice Virginia Long in Lombardi v. Masso, A-28/29-10, decided Aug. 26.
This content has been archived.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]
