Understanding Contempt and Appeals in U.S. Law: A Case Study of U.S. v. Hall, Slides of Civil procedure

Download Understanding Contempt and Appeals in U.S. Law: A Case Study of U.S. v. Hall and more Slides Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity! READING AND BRIEFING CASES Docsity.com WHAT WILL WE LEARN TODAY? • 1. Wrap-up of last class • 2. Finish up Appeals and Issue Preclusion • 3 How to brief a case: U.S. v. Hall Docsity.com 3. APPEALS • We will not do much on appeals in this course • FINAL JUDGMENT rule • Appeals from district court to U.S. Court of Appeal in their region • Error must be revealed in record, there must be timely objection to error, and error must materially affect outcome of case • Usually no new facts are considered on appeal • Generally must appeal 30 days after final judgment • Appeals to U.S. Supreme Court: WRIT OF CERTIORARI Docsity.com 4. BINDING EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS (RES JUDICATA) A. CLAIM PRECLUSION (res judicata) B. ISSUE PRECLUSION (collateral estoppel) Docsity.com CLAIM PRECLUSION EXAMPLE • Polly sues Dolly for breach of contract, wins, and recovers $7,000 in damages. If Polly thinks the judgment is too low, can she bring a second suit against Dolly? • After George kicks Andrew, Andrew sues George for negligence and loses. Can Andrew sue George for battery based on the same kick? Docsity.com Reading and Briefing Cases • You should have attempted to brief United States v. Hall • At tne end of class you can pick up a sample brief for this case • However, please note that there is more than one way to skin a cat (or brief a case). Eventually you will develop the briefing style that works best for you. Docsity.com Why Brief Cases? Docsity.com Why Brief Cases? • To analyze cases and focus on key ideas • To be able to compare and contrast different cases • To understand the legal arguments made in a case • To explore the public policy considerations affecting the outcome of a case Docsity.com What’s a holding? • The holding of a case is the decision of the court (facts plus rules) • Students often ask “did I get the holding right” • But a holding is a question of interpretation. Some interpretations are more strongly supported or better reasoned than others • Determining the holding is really a matter of legal argument • Sometimes a court will say “We hold X” but later courts will interpret the holding of the earlier case as something different! • Over time, a series of holdings crystallize into legal rules Docsity.com U.S. v. Hall: Basic Information • Name of case • Which court? • What is the year of decision? Docsity.com U.S. v. Hall: Procedural History • What is the procedural history leading up to the decision that you read? Docsity.com U.S. v. Hall: Allegations of Parties • What arguments does Hall make in support of his appeal? • 1. Under a common law rule, the court has no power to punish him for contempt because he is a non-party acting in pursuit of his own interests rather than those of a party • 2. Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prevents the court’s order from binding him because Hall is not among the people specifically enumerated in Rule 65(d). Docsity.com U.S. v. Hall: Support for Hall’s First Argument • What support does Hall muster for his first argument? Docsity.com U.S. v. Hall: Support for Hall’s First Argument • 2 prior cases cases suggest that one who is not a party to a lawsuit can’t be bound by injunctive relief in that lawsuit • These cases are: (1) Alemite Manufacturing Corp. v. Staff (2d Cir. 1930) and (2) Chase National Bank v. City of Norwalk (1934). Docsity.com U.S. v. Hall: Support for P’s Second Argument • Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure • What does Rule 65(d) provide? (You should always look at the specific wording of statutes or rules that are at issue in a case) Docsity.com Rule 65(d) • Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms . . .and is binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise. Docsity.com The Government’s Allegations • Does the Government rely on case law stating that a non-party is bound by an injunction? Docsity.com What Key Facts Are Identified By the Court? • Hall was a non-party to the Mims litigation • Hall had notice of the March 5 ex parte order. Court ordered Hall to be served with the injunction (was he?) • Order covers students and “other persons acting independently or in concert with them and having notice of this order.” • Hall violated the terms of the March 5 ex parte order restricting access to Ribault High School by going to the campus Docsity.com What are the Key Legal Doctrines Relied on By the Court? Docsity.com What are the Key Legal Doctrines Relied on By the Court? • At common law, courts have inherent jurisdiction of courts to preserve their ability to render judgment – basis for distinguishing Alemite and Chase • Rule 65(d) codifies but does not limit common law powers of courts. Can’t be read to limit inherent jurisdiction to protect ability to render binding judgments. Rule 65(d) embodies common law doctrine that injunctions bind not only parties but those identified in interest with them, in privity with them, or subject to their control Docsity.com QUESTIONING THE DISTINCTION • Failure to cite authority where non parties were bound by an injunction • Is the distinction made as strong as Judge Wisdom suggests? Wouldn’t the patent- holder in Alemite prefer that the decision cover all potential named defendants? • Are in rem cases involving ownership of property really like desegregating schools? Docsity.com The Court’s Reading of Rule 65(d) • Does Hall fall within the specific language of Rule 65(d)? • How does the court interpret Rule 65(d)? • Is the court’s reading of Rule 65(d) correct? Did the court violate the federal rule? Why or why not? Docsity.com What are the key policy interests at stake in U.S. v. Hall? Docsity.com What is the holding of U.S. v. Hall? • My statement of the holding is as follows: • A court has the power to hold in contempt a non-party who violates an ex parte restraining order in a school desegregation case, provided that the non-party has notice of the order. Docsity.com UNITED STATES V. HALL • At the end of class, you can pick up a copy of my brief of the case. • Please remember that there are many ways to brief a case. My version is only one way. Docsity.com