Frank Lloyd Wright famously once said: “A doctor can bury his mistakes, but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines.” What about a Supreme Court, whose stock in trade is words, albeit words that often wind up written in stone? A recent California Supreme Court decision, Ryan v. Rosenfeld, had to confront this question.
Ryan illustrates that a good place to look for judicial mistakes is in California’s labyrinth of post-trial motions, which can be a source of vexation for trial practitioners. It is bad enough to lose a judgment; now you have to choose, often quickly, whether to file a motion for new trial, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, motion to vacate the judgment, motion to correct the judgment, motion to set aside a judgment, motion for relief from judgment, some combination of motions, or perhaps some creative non-statutory motion.
This content has been archived.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]
