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

Objecting to Violations of Prior Rulings
June 04, 2018

Tips

Most recognize the well-known rule that, “once a trial court has definitively ruled on an issue on the record, before or during trial, a party need not renew an objection at trial to preserve a claim for appeal.” A slightly less well-known corollary, however, provides: “yes, but make sure you’re the one who actually objected in the first instance.”

In Miller v. Allman, 17-0080, 2018 WL 1701373, at *15 (W. Va. Apr. 6, 2018), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia illustrates this point. Before trial, the defendants in Miller filed a motion in limine to prevent opposing counsel from engaging in “golden rule” arguments. That motion was granted. During closing, however, opposing counsel made comments that the defendants felt were just such golden rule arguments. Believing the trial court’s pretrial grant of the motion in limine constituted a definitive ruling on the issue and no objection was needed to preserve the issue for appeal, no objection was made to the golden rule comments. 

The appellate court disagreed and held the issue was waived. Citing to its own prior case law and to cases interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 103(b), the court held that only the party who has opposed an earlier ruling is entitled to rely on the ruling to preserve a claim of error for appeal. The party who obtained the favorable ruling must still timely object if the opposing party violates the ruling.

Preservation Tip

If you prevail on a ruling before or at trial, particularly on a motion in limine, and the opposing party violates that ruling during trial, you must timely object to that violation to preserve the issue for appeal.
Related Practices
Appellate & Trial Support Litigation and Trials
©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.