Legal Document

528 U.S. 440120 S.Ct. 1011145 L.Ed.2d 958 SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as being done in connection with this case, at the time opinion issued. The constitutes no part of Court but has been prepared by Reporter Decisions for convenience reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WEISGRAM et al.v.MARLEY CO. al. CERTIORARI TO OFAPPEALS FOR EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 99 161. Argued January 18, 2000Decided February 22, 2000 Bonnie Weisgram died carbon monoxide poisoning during fire her home. Her son, petitioner Chad Weisgram, individually and on behalf heirs (hereinafter Weisgram), brought diversity action District seeking wrongful death damages. alleged that defect heater, manufactured defendant (now respondent) Marley Company located Weisgram's home, caused both death. At trial, introduced testimony three witnesses, proffered experts, an endeavor to prove heater its causal fire. overruled Marley's objections was unreliable therefore inadmissible under Federal Rule Evidence 702 elucidated Daubert Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 579. close evidence, again all unsuccessfully moved Civil Procedure 50(a) judgment matter law ground plaintiffs had failed meet their burden proof issues causation. jury returned verdict Weisgram. requested law, additionally requested, alternative, new pursuant Rules 50 59; among arguments support post-trial motions, reasserted expert essential case inadmissible. denied motions entered Eighth Circuit panel held motion should have granted because sole evidence supporting product charge, speculative not shown scientifically sound, incompetent plaintiffs' case. court then considered remaining light most favorable found insufficient verdict, directed Marley. Although recognizing discretion remand trial 50(d), rejected any contention required do so, stating fair opportunity strict liability claim, they there reason give them second chance. Held: permits appellate direct entry when determines erroneously admitted remaining, properly admitted, constitute submissible Pp. 5 16. (a) which controls when, here, loser appeals from court's denial provides: "[T]he party who prevailed may, appellee, assert grounds entitling event concludes erred denying . If reverses judgment, nothing rule precludes determining appellee entitled or directing determine whether shall granted." does expressly address that, subdivision (d), cannot sustained due error admission may order loser, must instead determination. Neely Martin K. Eby Constr. 386 317, ruled definitively if district defendant's (1) winner's request own motion, (2) decide warranted, (3) defendant. Id., 327 330. 10. (b) authority courts extends cases such present one which, excision testimony, remains jury's verdict. Contrary contention, limited exemplified based plaintiff's failure produce enough warrant asserts insufficiency deletion appeal requires "automatic remand" consideration warranted. His assertion draws Appeals decisions holding fairness winner relied confronting questions record went jury, without excising 702. relies are questionable consistency 50(a)(1), states ruling inquire "legally sufficient evidentiary basis reasonable find [the opponent motion]." Inadmissible contributes basis." Brooke Group Ltd. Brown Williamson Tobacco Corp., 209, 242. As recognized, rulings pleas call exercise "informed discretion," U.S., 329, parties surely key discretion. But concerns loom large winner, declares In situations, whose set aside notice, before deficiency. 50(a)(2). On appeal, argue or, alternatively, trial. And instructed further chance urge rehearing petition. Since Daubert, moreover, relying notice exacting standards reliability meet. It implausible suggest, post-Daubert, initially less than best expectation first try fail. rejects argument allowing defendants punish could shored up other means known would example, although every step way challenging he made attempt add substitute evidence. Facing Circuit's determination offered specific did abuse Marley, returning proceedings. This Court's adheres Neely's rationale. 10 169 F.3d 514, affirmed. Ginsburg, J., delivered unanimous Court. Opinion 1 NOTICE: subject formal revision publication preliminary print Reports. Readers notify Decisions, Supreme States, Washington, D. C. 20543, typographical errors, corrections goes press. 161 2 CHAD WEISGRAM, al., PETITIONERSv.MARLEY COMPANY 3 ON WRIT 4 Justice Ginsburg respective federal whether, favor loser. pattern we confront this. Plaintiff gains Defendant urges, successfully plaintiff unreliable, inadmissible, analysis 579 (1993). Shorn justify May instruct defendant, tribunal leaving choice between final case? 6 Our decision guided 50, governs pathmarking Construction 317 (1967). teaches, "be constantly alert" "the judge's first-hand knowledge issues"; words, first-instance decisionmaker's " 'feel' overall case." 325. render decision. If, particular better positioned rather ordered, return assessment. if, instant proceedings unwarranted full including appropriately enter against jury-verdict winner. Appellate make rendered removal deletion, insufficient. 7 * Firefighters arrived home December 30, 1993, discover flames around front entrance. Upon entering upstairs bathroom, dead poisoning. heirs, North Dakota He electric baseboard inside door his mother's death.1 8 objections, lodged Daubert. App. 123 125. Pet. Cert. A28 A40. appealed. 9 granted. 517 (1999). Writing majority, Chief Judge Bowman examined charge. 518 522. Concluding majority Ibid. 516 517, 521 footnote, "reject[ed] [it was] trial." n. 2. recognized so stated: "[W]e can discern out claim so." (internal citations omitted). dissenting judge disagreed points, concluding appropriate remedy improper award law. 522, 525 (citing Midcontinent Broadcasting Co. Central Airlines, 471 F.2d 357 (CA8 1973)). Courts divided question case.2 We certiorari resolve conflict, 527 1069 (1999),3 now affirm judgment. II 11 reproduced below, trials.4 allows remove "when facts sufficiently clear result." 9A Wright A. Miller, Practice §2521, p. 240 (2d ed. 1995) Miller). Subdivision (d) law: 12 13 Under Rule, thecase Brief Petitioner 20, 22; Reply 1, 17. Nothing addresses question.5 14 series pre-1967 decisions, refrained deciding question, while emphasizing importance giving deprived invoke grant Cone West Virginia Pulp Paper 330 212, 216 218 (1947); Globe Liquor San Roman, 332 571, 573 574 (1948); Johnson New York, N. H. R. 344 48, 54, (1952); see also §2540, 370. Then, Neely, reviewed prior jurisprudence court, power moving party. 326; Louis, Post-Verdict Rulings Sufficiency Evidence: Revisited, 1975 Wis. L. Rev. 503 (surveying chronologically bearing direction law). 15 addressed compatibility (then styled "judgment n.o.v.") Seventh Amendment's guarantee. settled, pointed out, 50(b), offense Amendment. 321 Montgomery Ward Duncan, 311 243 (1940)). "As far right concerned," reasoned, "there greater restriction province enters n.o.v. does"; accordingly, concluded, constitutional bar granting n.o.v." 322 Baltimore Carolina Line, Inc. Redman, 295 654 (1935)). next turned statutory jurisdiction [in 28 U.S.C. § 2106],"6 "certainly broad include appeal." 322. remainder effectively complements 50(c) providing guidance 50(b) 330; cf. supra, note (1963 observation Advisory Committee year, "problems [concerning coupled motions] ha[d] fully canvassed"). 16 represents volte-face understanding competences forums. Immediately after declaring cautioned: 17 "Part concern protect rights valid some passed upon appeals, These very alert." 325.7 18 Nevertheless, continued, closeness "do[es] ironclad never dismissal 326. "Such rule," "would serve purpose speed litigation avoid unnecessary retrials." ultimately clarified Miller 371 372. III 19 us opinions diverge regarding scope. line posits distinction becomes certain case.8 Insufficiency contends, 6; Tr. Oral Arg. 6, 23.9 20 See, e.g., Kinser Gehl 184 1259, 1267, 1269 (CA10 1999); Schudel General Electric 120 991, 995 996 (CA9 1997); Jackson Pleasant Grove Health Care Center, 980 692, 695 696 (CA11 1993); Broadcasting, F.2d, 358. Lightning Lube, Witco 1153, 1198 1200 (CA3 1993). 242 (1993) ("When supported validate eyes indisputable contradict otherwise unreasonable, verdict.").10 21 Fed. Civ. Proc. 50(a)(2) (motion "shall specify judgment"). petition.11 22 579; Kumho Tire Carmichael, 526 137 (1999) (rendered shortly case);12 Joiner, 522 136 (1997). unconvincing fears 25. Lujan National Wildlife Federation, 497 871, 897 (1990) ("[A] litigant's buttress position confidence strength always indulged risk."). 23 After evaluated presented viewing F.3d, 517. Circuit.13 Even petition rehearing, argued only misapplied state adequate deference rulings. 131 151. concluded "not these circumstances, 24 25 myriad situations judge. 325 held, however, adhere rationale, today hold 26 For reasons stated, 27 Affirmed. Notes 1. suit consolidated State Farm Fire Casualty Company, insurer recover benefits paid damage townhouse adjoining townhouse. dismissed purposes opinion, generally refer petitioners us, simply "Weisgram." 29 Tenth inappropriate erroneous unfair 1999). Fourth, Sixth, Circuits recently issued accord earlier advanced Third Circuit, improperly Redman John Brush 111 1174, 1178 1179 (CA4 Smelser Norfolk Southern 105 299, 301, 306 (CA6 Willamette Industries, 91 1105, 1108 1996); accord, Aloe Coal Clark Equipment 816 110, 115 116 1987). 30 3. agreed issue accordingly accept experts 702, explicated 31 4. "Rule 50. Judgment Matter Law Jury Trials; Alternative Motion Trial; Conditional Rulings. "(a) Law. "(1) heard legally issue, respect defense controlling maintained defeated finding issue. "(2) Motions submission jury. Such sought "(b) Renewing Trial. reason, submitted later legal raised motion. movant renew filing days alternatively join 59. renewed may: returned: "(A) allow stand, "(B) "(C) law; returned; "(c) Granting Renewed Law; Rulings; Trial Motion. granted, any, thereafter vacated reversed, thus conditionally thereon affect finality reversed proceed unless ordered. denied, denial; subsequent accordance court. Any 59 whom filed "(d) Same: Denial 32 5. According 1963 amendments, "omission" inadvertent: 33 "Subdivision regulation aspects procedure where accompanying since problems canvassed respects still formative stage. is, designed important features practice." Committee's App., 769. 34 6. Section 2106 reads: "The affirm, modify, vacate, reverse decree, lawfully review, cause order, require just circumstances." 35 7. Iacurci Lummus 387 86 (1967) (per curiam), decided illustrative. There, determination; respond four five special interrogatories, left negligence unresolved, "was pass charge interrogatory answers." 88. 36 8. 8, 23, 28, 31; Respondents 29. Compare, Redman,111 (treating identically initial insufficiency); Smelser, (same); Wright, 1993) (rejecting distinction), Kinser, (insufficiency law); Douglass Eaton 956 1339, 1343 1344 1992) 357, 358 359 1973) (same). 37 9. misreads (1940), position. 4; 19. grants loser's party's alternative 253 254. conditional Proceeding manner protracting obviating need multiple appeals. id., 253. amended codify Ward's instruction. 50(c)(1). course elaboration, observed "motion unless, 251. contrast, discretion, bottomed standard weight evidence," damages excessive," substantial errors were "in rejection evidence." Ibid; 249. Many course', bear dispositively adequacy excluded strengthen weaken side's conclusive litigation's outcome. Or, abundantly another item unduly prejudicial excludable account. Evid. 403 (relevant "may probative value substantially outweighed danger prejudice"). run-of-the-mine, ordinarily nondispositive, rulings, take it, sort contemplated Ward. Cf. 245 246 (indicating sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges assigned trial). 38 urges Amendment prohibits different violating Entering scarcely destructive it. 39 11. recognize awkward wholeheartedly urging correctness point Kaplan, Amendments Procedure, 1961 (II), 77 Harv. 801, 819 (1964) ("A suffer forensic embarrassment arguing behalf, faute de mieux, defend attacks opponent."). A involves conflicting tugs. persuaded objection allowed formulate compelling period longer ten move 50(c)(2). Nor foreclose possibility might deny pressed plainly formulated brief. 503, 519 520, 90 ("[I]t often difficult gap one's filled exists ." hand, brief oral suffice area previously clearly identified.") citation 40 12. consistent precedent existing Peitzmeier Hennessy 97 293, 297 1996). 41 13. (observing terminated strengthened "itself [imposing] too high ").

Classification Label: 7