Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
16. Should the appellate court find that it has jurisdiction over the appeals?
A jury later rendered a verdict in favor of the insurance company. The driver moved for a new trial, but the district court denied the motion. The driver then promptly filed a notice of appeal from that denial and from the judgment in favor of the insurance company. The insurance company cross-appealed the district court's decision to impose sanctions upon it. On its own motion, the appellate court raised the question of its jurisdiction over the appeal and the cross-appeal.
A driver who suffered brain injuries as a result of an automobile accident brought suit in federal court against his insurance company, seeking payment of benefits for the cost of home care services. During discovery, the court held that the insurance company violated discovery orders and that the court would impose a substantial monetary penalty on the insurance company. The court reserved its ruling on the amount of the sanction it would impose.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
After a judgment has been entered, a party may be entitled to have the judgment voided on several grounds:
(i) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(ii) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time for a new trial;
(iii) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(iv) the judgment is void;
(v) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; AND/OR
(vi) any other reason that justifies relief.
B is correct. Although the appellate court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal on the insurance company's sanctions claim, it does have jurisdiction over the driver's appeal from that denial and from the judgment in favor of the insurance company.
As to the sanctions claim, no final judgment had been entered because the court had reserved its ruling on the amount. As to the driver's appeal, however, final judgment was entered in favor of the insurance company on the merits of the case, which allows the appellate court to exercise jurisdiction.
A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct conclusion but with incorrect legal reasoning. Although the court does, in fact, lack jurisdiction over the insurance company's sanctions claim because the district court never ruled on the amount, it DOES have jurisdiction over the driver's appeal. This is because the driver's appeal follows a final judgment on the merits (entered in favor of the insurance company). Thus, the appeals court properly may exercise jurisdiction over that claim.
C is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of the law. A court of appeals is under no obligation to wait for a party to raise the issue of whether jurisdiction is proper. Appellate courts may, sua sponte, rightfully raise the issue of whether they may exercise jurisdiction. Therefore, the appellate court here properly raised the issue of its jurisdiction over these appeals.
D is incorrect. This answer is only partially correct. The appellate court only has jurisdiction over the driver's claim because there has been a final judgment on the merits. However, since the district court has not determined the amount of sanctions against the insurance company, the appellate court has no basis of jurisdiction over the appeal of the sanctions. Further, the mere belief in the efficiency of deciding the appeal now cannot substitute for a basis of appellate jurisdiction under the FRCP.