Document Type

Working Paper

Publication Date

11-21-2007

SSRN Discipline

Legal Scholarship Network; Law School Research Papers - Legal Studies; Litigation, Procedure & Dispute Resolution eJournals; Law & Society eJournals; LSN Subject Matter eJournals; Law School Research Papers - Public Law & Legal Theory; Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy eJournals

Abstract

In just the past few years the United States Supreme Court in a sharp break with more than 150 years of Seventh Amendment jurisprudence has transferred to federal appellate courts meaningful power to supplant jury verdicts This power in effect permits significant de novo review of jury factfinding Thus the Courts recent decisions have dramatically undermined the jurys supremacy as the first and final factfinder In the past five years the Supreme Court has issued three decisions expanding federal appellate court power into the factfinding arena by directly contravening its own longestablished precedent The subject matters of these three decisions were distinctly unrelated the application of Erie principles to a New York law supplying a statecourt standard of review the admission of expert evidence on review from the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law and the review of a punitive damages award in a trademark action These substantive distinctions have largely obscured the Courts underlying procedural revolution The Supreme Courts intrusion into jury factfinding is the very evil contemplated by the Framers and the very evil the Seventh Amendment was intended to prevent The Supreme Courts intrusion into the discretionary power of the district court also implicates the Seventh Amendment by in effect permitting appellate reexamination of jury factfinding in a manner other than according to the rules of the common law Thus both developments upset the Framers concept of the respective spheres of the trial courts and juries versus the federal appellate courts

Download

Share

COinS