Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
It is not uncommon for summary judgments of the lower U.S. courts in complex cases to be overturned on appeal. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, [15] meaning, without deference to the views of the trial judge, both as to the determination that there is no remaining genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
On a motion for summary judgment, the judge should first determine if there is a genuine issue requiring trial based only on the evidence before her, without using the new fact-finding powers. There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial if the summary judgment process provides her with the evidence required to fairly and justly adjudicate ...
This might be the proper standard of review, for example, if the lower court resolved the case by granting a pre-trial motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment which is usually based only upon written submissions to the trial court and not on any trial testimony. Another situation is where appeal is by way of "re-hearing".
A judgment must also describe the parties' claims and the grounds on which their claims are based, identifying both the final judgment and the reasons for the judgment. [101] In light of compliance with the rules of the Code and the absence of an appeal, a judgment is presumed to have been executed correctly.
Tuthill, 265 Va. 492 (2003), about the practice of an appeal from district court trial de novo to circuit court: "This Court has repeatedly held that the effect of an appeal to circuit court is to 'annul the judgment of the inferior tribunal as completely as if there had been no previous trial.'" [4] Some states use a system combining aspects ...
It asserts that the evidence allows only one result: victory for the moving party, even if a jury has found otherwise. [2] JMOL is also known as a directed verdict, which it has replaced in American federal courts. [3] JMOL is similar to judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, all of which test the factual sufficiency of a claim. [4]
The Supreme Court normally DIGs a case through a per curiam decision, [a] usually without giving reasons, [2] but rather issuing a one-line decision: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted." However, justices sometimes file separate opinions, and the opinion of the Court may instead give reasons for the DIG.
The district court granted summary judgment for Merrell Dow, and Daubert and Schuller appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit found the district court correctly granted summary judgment because the plaintiffs' proffered evidence had not yet been accepted as a reliable technique by scientists who had had an opportunity to scrutinize and ...