Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-210_7mi8.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–210 
_________________ 

NEIL DUPREE, PETITIONER v. 
KEVIN YOUNGER 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

[May 25, 2023] 

JUSTICE BARRETT delivered the opinion of the Court. 
In Ortiz v. Jordan, we held that an order denying sum-
mary  judgment  on  sufficiency-of-the-evidence  grounds  is 
not appealable after a trial.  562 U. S. 180 (2011).  Thus, a 
party who wants to preserve a sufficiency challenge for ap-
peal must raise it anew in a post-trial motion.  The question
presented in this case is whether this preservation require-
ment extends to a purely legal issue resolved at summary 
judgment.  The answer is no. 

I 
A 
The  Federal  Rules  of  Civil  Procedure  empower  district
courts to direct the entry of judgment before, during, or af-
ter  trial.  Before  trial,  the  defendant  can  file  a  motion  to 
dismiss  the  complaint  based  on  certain  defenses,  such  as
lack  of  jurisdiction  or  failure  to  state  a  claim  upon  which
relief can be granted.  Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b).  If the dis-
trict court denies that motion (or any other Rule 12 motion), 
the  case  advances  to  discovery  for  the  parties  to  marshal 
evidence supporting their claims and defenses.  During or