Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1

    Default When a Case Has Genuine Dispute, It Has to Be Trialed or Judge Can Make Decision

    My question involves court procedures for the state of: Federal

    When a case has genuine dispute, it has to go to jury trial or judge can make decision based on documents provided by both parties without hearing and trial?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,409

    Default Re: When a Case Has Genuine Dispute, It Has to Be Trialed or Judge Can Make Decision

    Quote Quoting worldfg
    View Post
    My question involves court procedures for the state of: Federal

    When a case has genuine dispute, it has to go to jury trial or judge can make decision based on documents provided by both parties without hearing and trial?
    If there is a genuine dispute about the MATERIAL FACTS in the case then the case will go to trial unless the parties settle the matter first. If the dispute is only a legal one, i.e. how the law applies to undisputed facts, then the case does not go to trial. Instead, the judge resolves the matter in summary judgment. Trials are only done when there is a need for the fact finder (the jury in a jury trial) to decide disputed facts.

  3. #3

    Default Re: When a Case Has Genuine Dispute, It Has to Be Trialed or Judge Can Make Decision

    Who would decide "If there is a genuine dispute about the MATERIAL FACTS in the case"? It is Judge who would decide, correct? So judge would decide if a case goes to trial or he/she will decide it, correct? If it is true, a litigate's fate is relayed on judge's judgement or more importantly his/her integrity.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,409

    Default Re: When a Case Has Genuine Dispute, It Has to Be Trialed or Judge Can Make Decision

    Quote Quoting worldfg
    View Post
    Who would decide "If there is a genuine dispute about the MATERIAL FACTS in the case"? It is Judge who would decide, correct?
    Yes, the judge decides that. But understand that the standard is that the court views all the facts of the case in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. So let's say the defendant asks for summary judgment in his favor (which is by far the most common circumstance). The court will look at the facts plead in the complaint and any other facts that have been provided in the case and look at those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and decide if summary judgment should be granted. Basically, think of it as the court asking the question: "if everything the plaintiff said was true, would the plaintiff win?" If the answer to that question is no, then the court must grant the summary judgment to the defendant. The reason for that is easy to understand: if you can't win even if everything you said was true, then you never had a good claim to bring. But if the answer is yes, then the summary judgment is denied and the case goes to trial. So the judge isn't deciding the facts of the case. He or she is simply taking what the plaintiff says happened as true and then applying the law to that to determine if the plaintiff actually has a good claim to pursue.

  5. #5

    Default Re: When a Case Has Genuine Dispute, It Has to Be Trialed or Judge Can Make Decision

    Yes, what you said is for a ideal situation. The real life was different picture. What happen the case proceeding involved faulty and criminal activities: Defendant drafted a SMJ, which contained false statements and evidence (perjury and forged documents, and did not include any Plaintiff's evidence or argument, sent to Judge without posting on ECF (by misconduct of ex parte communication), then judge signed the SMJ and order. Game was over. It has been proved that it was useless to appeal on circuit and supreme courts. Not mention to even report all the crimes activities to FBI. During the whole round of proceeding, Plaintiff hired layers on two occasions/periods, it was useless! Just one word to get back, denied! The dark side of our legal system is too strong to fight??

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: When a Case Has Genuine Dispute, It Has to Be Trialed or Judge Can Make Decision

    Quote Quoting worldfg
    View Post
    When a case has genuine dispute, it has to go to jury trial or judge can make decision based on documents provided by both parties without hearing and trial?
    Despite your use of a question mark, this sentence is not phrased as a question. You seem to be parroting or paraphrasing Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

    Quote Quoting worldfg
    View Post
    Who would decide "If there is a genuine dispute about the MATERIAL FACTS in the case"? It is Judge who would decide, correct?
    Correct.


    Quote Quoting worldfg
    View Post
    So judge would decide if a case goes to trial or he/she will decide it, correct?
    If a party makes a motion for summary judgment, then the judge will make this decision.


    Quote Quoting worldfg
    View Post
    If it is true, a litigate's fate is relayed on judge's judgement or more importantly his/her integrity.
    Ummm...ok.

    Quote Quoting worldfg
    View Post
    Yes, what you said is for a ideal situation. The real life was different picture. What happen the case proceeding involved faulty and criminal activities: Defendant drafted a SMJ, which contained false statements and evidence (perjury and forged documents, and did not include any Plaintiff's evidence or argument, sent to Judge without posting on ECF (by misconduct of ex parte communication), then judge signed the SMJ and order. Game was over. It has been proved that it was useless to appeal on circuit and supreme courts. Not mention to even report all the crimes activities to FBI. During the whole round of proceeding, Plaintiff hired layers on two occasions/periods, it was useless! Just one word to get back, denied! The dark side of our legal system is too strong to fight??
    I'm not sure what you expect anyone to make of this post, except that you're apparently dissatisfied with a court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment (in which case you can appeal or seek an interlocutory appeal, depending on whether you a plaintiff or a defendant). Also, "SMJ" is not a term that anyone uses. "Motion for summary judgment" is commonly abbreviated as "MSJ."

  7. #7

    Default Re: When a Case Has Genuine Dispute, It Has to Be Trialed or Judge Can Make Decision

    Yes, MSJ. Appeal process was a "joke", at least for Pro Se.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,409

    Default Re: When a Case Has Genuine Dispute, It Has to Be Trialed or Judge Can Make Decision

    Quote Quoting worldfg
    View Post
    Yes, MSJ. Appeal process was a "joke", at least for Pro Se.
    You get the same consideration in appeal as pro se as a party represented by a lawyer does. However, the courts of appeal don't cut you any slack because you are pro se. If the appeals rejected the appeal without much comment then it means the judges felt that the appeal outcome was pretty obvious — that is, that the trial court got it right that you didn't have a case you could win and that summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate. Lots of pro se parties feel so strongly about their cases that they cannot conceive of the idea that they actually didn't have a good case to bring in the first place. So when they get rejected by the courts, they blame the courts instead of asking what was wrong with the case they brought that caused it to fail. I suspect that you likely didn't have the great case you thought you did. You may have to accept that, while you are upset at the defendant, there was no remedy in federal court for you for whatever it was the defendant did that you didn't like. What is it that you alleged the defendant did that gave you a federal claim?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: When a Case Has Genuine Dispute, It Has to Be Trialed or Judge Can Make Decision

    Quote Quoting worldfg
    View Post
    Yes, MSJ. Appeal process was a "joke", at least for Pro Se.
    So...basically you're just posting to rant -- without any context -- about your dissatisfaction with the outcome of a case to which you were a party?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Divorce: How Long for a Judge to Make a Decision
    By MarsBars in forum Divorce, Annulment and Separation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-08-2012, 10:11 AM
  2. Modification of Support: Is There a Specific Time Frame for a Family Court Judge to Make a Decision
    By MikesMom in forum Child Custody, Support and Visitation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 10:30 AM
  3. Appeals: Can a Judge Overrule the Decision of Another Judge of the Same Court
    By ascorbate in forum Civil Procedure
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-30-2009, 01:22 PM
  4. Time Line for Judge's Decision
    By bobcat76 in forum Worker's Compensation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-25-2009, 08:34 PM
  5. Defenses: Statute of Limitations For A Judge's Decision
    By dcfaith21 in forum Civil Procedure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-31-2007, 07:20 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources