August 19, 2003

Appellate Court Can't Construe What It Can't Read

Howard Bashman's blog How Appealing reports that

"Failure to include key document in appendix on appeal leads federal appellate court to summarily affirm".

The 10th Circuit was not amused when Travelers appealed on a coverage issue and a copy of the insurance policy was not included in the record on appeal.

It's not enough to include the policy or contract; the Court has to be able to read it. Blurry copies or tiny print or both are just as bad as not having the document at all.

Aug 19, 2003 11:53:25 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
DC Court of Appeals Affirms Multi-Million Dollar Judgment Against District Cablevision Putting an end to nine years of litigation, the D.C. Court of Appeals has affirmed a judgment against District Cablevision under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, in the amount of $3,414,411 in compensatory damages, $425,916.25 in attorney's fees, prejudgment interest, plus treble damages. This was a class action based on illegally excessive late payment fees the cable company levied on its subscribers. Significantly, the Court of Appeals held that treble damages must be awarded to the plaintiffs even though the evidence was insufficient to support punitive damages: Since the purpose of treble damages under the CPPA is remedial rather than punitive, the plaintiffs in this case were entitled to an award of treble damages without the showing of egregious conduct and malice required for punitive damages. We agree with the Williams court that “[o]nce it is established that a consumer [has] suffered any damage, the CPPA authorizes courts to treble damages without further findings.” District Cablevision, LP v. Bassin, No. 98-CV-1837 (D.C. July 17, 2003).
PREVIOUS POST
Effect of Removal on Pretrial Orders of Transferring Court A recent per curiam opinion of the D.C. Court of Appeals illustrates the general rule that upon removal, or remand from removal, the receiving court takes the case up where the transferring court left it off, and the receiving court treats the pretrial orders of the transferring court as if they were its own. In this case, the federal district court granted summary judgment on claims which had created federal question jurisdiction. Then, rather than rule on the summary judgment motion as it pertained to non-federal claims, it remanded those claims to state court. On remand, the Superior Court judge declined to permit the party opposing the summary judgment motion to supplement her opposition to the pending motion. The federal district court had refused to allow such supplementation in violation of its pretrial scheduling order, and the state court judge treated those orders as if they were its own, and likewise declined to permit the supplemental filings. That ruling was affirmed on appeal.

DS

The Typepad Team

Search

Recent Comments