In its previous term, the U.S. Supreme Court managed to bring a resolution to a circuit conflict that had been ongoing for decades with the Dupree v. Younger verdict, a ruling that stated that purely legal matters settled during summary judgment did not need to be revisited in post-trial motions adhering to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(a) and (b) for the purpose of retaining those issues for appeal. This significant decision offers guidance to litigators about preserving certain arguments for appeal, however, it consequently prompts queries concerning the impact it may have on the denials of Rule 12(b) and (c) motions.
Blaine Evanson and Jeremy Christiansen from Gibson Dunn, who have meticulously analyzed the said ruling and its implications, are of the belief that the Court’s ruling raises questions regarding the nature of how Rule 12 motions will be affected in the wake of this decision. The seasoned litigators discuss the implications of this ruling in their insightful analysis available here.
Bearing in mind the importance of this ruling in the daily operations of legal professionals across several jurisdictions, it is crucial that legal pundits and professionals alike devote attention to understanding its wider implications. They should assess the extent of its impact on the present procedures surrounding post-trial motions and the preservation of issues for appeal, particularly with respect to Rule 12 motions. This task is no small feat, considering the extensive reach and potential transformative power the Supreme Court’s decision holds within the legal fraternity.