Roundup

Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.

By the rules of Civil Procedure, if a lawyer believes there is insufficient evidence to uphold a ruling in favor of the opposing party, she may file a motion under Rule 50, requesting a ruling “as a matter of law.” Rule 50(a) sets out this procedure after the evidence has been heard, but before the question is left to the jury. Rule 50(b) sets out the procedure after the ruling has been returned from the jury. This case considers whether the failure to apply for a Rule 50(b) ruling as a matter of law precludes later appeal for lack of evidence.

The majority holds that because of precedent, the common understanding that it is a formality to request a ruling under Rule 50(b) if the circumstances apply, the fact that it is the trial court that is fully acquainted with the original trial, and because courts are encouraged to submit the question to the jury and rule after the verdict, wherever the federal jurisdiction is concerned, the failure to apply for a Rule 50(b) ruling precludes appeal on the basis of lack of evidence. The majority also asserts that precedent dictates that “whether an appellate court may enter judgment in the absence of a postverdict motion, as opposed to whether an appellate court may order a new trial (as the Federal Circuit did here) … is immaterial.” Additionally, the majority refutes the arguments of the dissent by highlighting that the statutory language uses the word “may.” While this word would allow courts jurisdiction, which the majority seems to deny, it does not mandate it. The dissent, for its part, argues that the majority’s assertion that the court of appeals lacked the power to review the case is incorrect (“may” not ‘must’), and that in the interests of the spirit of the law, and justice per se, the appeal should be allowed.

Will v. Hallock (Boring)

When federal agents confiscated computers from a home business those computers and data were damaged. The plaintiffs argue that the waiver of sovereign immunity applies to them in that there was a determination in a lower court that was, while not final (which is usually necessary), was determinative and not reviewable. The Court held that, per the collateral order doctrine, determinative non-appeal-able non-final decisions are directly appeal-able where specific rights are violated (a practical construction of the law rather than a reinterpretation of it), and that whereas this case was decided on purely procedural grounds, jurisdiction in the case is lacking.

Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm'n (Per Curium)

A lower court misinterpreted a footnote in McConnel v. Federal Election Commission, and thereby held that "as-applied" challenges to a particular law were barred. The case was sent back.

Alaska v. United States (Decree)

The result of this case, effectively in favor of the US