Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

As Anticipated: SCOTUS Makes the Appellate Process of Purely Legal Issues Less Stringent
June 02, 2023

In a prior post, we discussed the oral argument in Dupree v. Younger, in which the U.S. Supreme Court questioned the preservation requirement in a minority of circuits that a purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment be raised at and after trial for the issue to be reviewable on appeal. In the underlying case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review an issue that had been ruled on at the summary judgment stage but was not reasserted at and after trial.

 

As we predicted, on May 25, 2023, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Fourth Circuit, holding that litigants can appeal purely legal issues resolved at summary judgment without having to raise them again at and after trial. The court noted that a “repeat-motion requirement” would amount to an “empty exercise,” as “a purely legal question is, by definition, one whose answer is independent of disputed facts” and “factual development at trial will not change the district court’s answer.” And, where litigants are unsure whether an issue involves a factual dispute, they can (and, in an abundance of caution, should) raise it at and after trial. The court declined to decide whether the issue in that case presented a “purely legal" issue, deeming the Fourth Circuit capable of deciding that issue in the first instance.
Authored By
Image: Katarina Dobsinska
Katarina Dobsinska
Related Practices
Appellate & Trial Support
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.