Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In law, a summary judgment, also referred to as judgment as a matter of law or summary disposition, [1] is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case.
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) defines "motion in limine " as "a pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial." They are made "preliminary", and are presented for consideration of the judge, arbitrator or hearing officer, to be decided without the merits being reached first. [1]: 791
Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a Batson challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged.
Angelo Gambiglioni, De re iudicata, 1579 Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter, [1] and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the same parties.
A trial judgment must contain certain information, including the parties and their representatives, the court and judges involved in the decision, the date the proceedings finished, the merits of the case and the reasons for the judgment. [116]
The trial and appellate business courts will be open for cases on September 1, 2024. [16] This new court is a separate statutory court, and not a division of the district court. Thus, it will remove some types of cases from the dockets of the district courts where the new business court is operational.
In the United States courts, a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party, during trial, claiming the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. [1] It asserts that the evidence allows only one result: victory for the moving party, even if a jury has found otherwise. [2]
Thompson that a petitioner who failed to comply with a timeliness requirement in a state court could nevertheless plead their claims on the merits in federal court if the petitioner could show that "failure to consider the claims [would] result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice." [6]