Non-suit

Last updated

A non-suit (British English) or nonsuit (American English) is a legal procedure. A plaintiff (or other person bringing a civil action, such as a petitioner) drops his or her suit, under certain circumstances that do not prevent another action being brought later on the same facts.

Contents

United States

In the United States, a voluntary nonsuit is a motion taken by the plaintiff to release one or more of the defendants from liability.

An example would be a plaintiff suing a physician and a hospital for damages resulting from surgical complications. If the plaintiff settles with the physician, the plaintiff would nonsuit the physician (removing him/her from the suit) but maintain action against the hospital and the suit would continue. If the plaintiff later settles with the hospital before trial, the resulting nonsuit would end the case as all defendants have been released.

A nonsuit is a right of the plaintiff, but it may be prevented if the defendant has pleaded for affirmative relief.

The law in the United States was established as early as 1828 when the Supreme Court ruled:

A nonsuit, may not be ordered by the Court, upon the application of the defendant, and cannot as we have had occasion to decide, at the present term, be ordered in any case without the consent and acquiescence of the plaintiff [1]

A compulsory nonsuit is a decision by a court that a case cannot proceed to trial, either on substantive or procedural grounds. Depending on which grounds the nonsuit is entered, the plaintiff may or may not be able to file his case again.

In the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the term does not appear, but a dismissal under Rules 12 and 41 has a similar effect.

Often, the term "nonsuit" will appear in older U.S. cases. The meaning of the term in most of these older cases is the same as described for the United Kingdom (see below). This is because most colonies, upon separation from England, still used English common law (as no U.S. or state-specific laws had yet been passed). In more modern parlance, this type of motion is known as a "motion of dismissal".

A few code pleading states, such as California and Pennsylvania, still use the term "nonsuit" to refer to an involuntary or compulsory nonsuit which is granted at the request of an opponent. In such circumstances it is functionally equivalent to a motion for a directed verdict or judgment as a matter of law. For example, in California, a motion for nonsuit under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 581c "is a procedural device which allows a defendant to challenge the sufficiency of plaintiff's evidence to submit the case to the jury," and it cannot be granted if the plaintiff's evidence would be sufficient to support a jury verdict in the plaintiff's favor. [2]

Virginia

In Virginia, which does not follow the Federal Rules, a nonsuit is known by that name. A nonsuit is simply an agreement by the plaintiff not to proceed in that suit against that defendant, and is not a bar to bringing a future action against the same defendant. [3] There are restrictions on when a Virginia nonsuit may be taken, and only one nonsuit may be taken against a party on a cause of action as a matter of right. [4] Within the limitations, a plaintiff has an absolute right to one nonsuit. [5] A Virginia plaintiff who takes a nonsuit may bring a new action against the same defendant(s) on the same subject matter within six months, regardless of the operation of the Statute of Limitations. [6] The difference between a Federal Rule 41 dismissal and a Virginia nonsuit is more a matter of form than substance, although the Virginia statute does not require the consent of the defendant and can be taken at later stages in the proceeding. [7]

A nonsuit is often taken by a plaintiff who anticipates a judgment or ruling that "imparts finality" against him, who wants to avoid the adverse judgment and preserve at least the possibility of prevailing on the merits of his case in the future. [8]

United Kingdom

England and Wales

In the common law courts (e.g. the Court of Common Pleas) a party to a civil action had a right of withdraw their claim/counterclaim by nonsuit up until verdict or judgment without prejudice to the launch of a fresh action. [9] There was an equivalent right in the Court of Chancery to dismiss one's own bill (as actions in that court were known as). [10] When the courts were merged by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, provision was made for the procedure to governed by rules of court. The 1875 rules provided for non suiting but also made provision for setting aside a judgment of nonsuit. In 1883 the nonsuit provisions were repealed and replaced by discontinuance of an action.

Thereafter it was subsequently ruled that nonsuiting ceased to exist in the High Court of Justice having been wholly displaced by the provisions relating to discontinuance. [11]

In the County Courts, the County Court rules continued to provide for nonsuiting until the Rules of the Supreme Court and the County Court Rules were repealed and replaced by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, [12] which only provided for discontinuance. This brought nonsuiting to an end in mainstream England and Wales (although one cannot comment for e.g. actions in the High Court of Chivalry). [13]

Northern Ireland

The present court rules [14] make no provision for nonsuiting and provide instead for discontinuance. One therefore presumes nonsuiting no longer exists in Northern Ireland, applying the same principles as in England and Wales.[ citation needed ]

Scotland

The position in Scotland is unknown.[ citation needed ]

Related Research Articles

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the defendant. A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also called judgmentnon obstante veredicto, or JNOV, is a type of judgment as a matter of law that is sometimes rendered at the conclusion of a jury trial.

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". The rationale behind issue preclusion is the prevention of legal harassment and the prevention of overuse or abuse of judicial resources.

A vacated judgment legally voids a previous legal judgment. A vacated judgment is usually the result of the judgment of an appellate court, which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court. An appellate court may also vacate its own decisions. Rules of procedure may allow vacatur either at the request of a party or sua sponte.

A demurrer is a pleading in a lawsuit that objects to or challenges a pleading filed by an opposing party. The word demur means "to object"; a demurrer is the document that makes the objection. Lawyers informally define a demurrer as a defendant saying "So what?" to the pleading.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Verdict</span> Formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters submitted to it by the judge

In law, a verdict is the formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters or questions submitted to the jury by a judge. In a bench trial, the judge's decision near the end of the trial is simply referred to as a finding. In England and Wales, a coroner's findings used to be called verdicts but are, since 2009, called conclusions.

In United States law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. It is a request to the judge to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is regulated by court rules which vary from place to place. The party requesting the motion is the moving party or movant. The party opposing the motion is the nonmoving party or nonmovant.

<i>Res judicata</i> Claim preclusion in law

Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar relitigation of a claim between the same parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicature Acts</span> UK laws restructuring the English-Welsh court system (1873–1899)

In the history of the courts of England and Wales, the Judicature Acts were a series of acts of Parliament, beginning in the 1870s, which aimed to fuse the hitherto split system of courts of England and Wales. The first two acts were the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, with a further series of amending acts.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. They are the companion to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rules promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act become part of the FRCP unless, within seven months, the United States Congress acts to veto them. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body.

The Virginia General District Court (GDC) is the lowest level of the Virginia court system, and is the court that most Virginians have contact with. The jurisdiction of the GDC is generally limited to traffic cases and other misdemeanors, civil cases involving amounts of under $25,000. There are 32 GDC districts, each having at least one judge, and each having a clerk of the court and a courthouse with courtroom facilities.

Default judgment is a binding judgment in favor of either party based on some failure to take action by the other party. Most often, it is a judgment in favor of a plaintiff when the defendant has not responded to a summons or has failed to appear before a court of law. The failure to take action is the default. The default judgment is the relief requested in the party's original petition.

In the United States courts, a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party, during trial, claiming the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. It asserts that the evidence allows only one result: victory for the moving party, even if a jury has found otherwise. JMOL is also known as a directed verdict, which it has replaced in American federal courts.

Baylis v. Travelers' Insurance Company, 113 U.S. 316 (1885), was a case where after close of testimony in a trial, the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict. This motion was denied and the plaintiff asked that the case be submitted to the jury to determine the facts on the evidence. The court refused this, and plaintiff excepted. The court then ordered a verdict for plaintiff, subject to its opinion, whether the facts proved were sufficient to render defendant liable to plaintiff on the cause of action stated. Plaintiff moved for judgment on the verdict, and defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings and minutes of trial. Judgment was rendered for defendant upon an opinion of the court as to the effect of the evidence and as to the law on the facts as deduced from it by the court. Held that the plaintiff was thereby deprived of his constitutional right to a trial by jury, which he had not waived, and to which he was entitled.

The Virginia Circuit Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Circuit Courts have jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal cases. For civil cases, the courts have authority to try cases with an amount in controversy of more than $4,500 and have exclusive original jurisdiction over claims for more than $25,000. In criminal matters, the Circuit Courts are the trial courts for all felony charges and for misdemeanors originally charged there. The Circuit Courts also have appellate jurisdiction for any case from the Virginia General District Courts claiming more than $50, which are tried de novo in the Circuit Courts.

Virginia civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and standards that Virginia courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits. Professor W. Hamilton Bryson is the preeminent master and legal scholar on Virginia Civil Procedure. Many commentators particularly equate him with the "scholars and lords chancellors of old."

A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

<i>Osborn v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank</i>

In Osborn v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, 5 Cal.App.4th 234 (1992), the Court of Appeals of California considered certain questions pertaining to whether a blood bank could be held liable for negligence or negligent misrepresentation after a patient contracted HIV/AIDS as a result of a blood transfusion.

Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp., 187 Cal.App.4th 1295 (2010), is the second appeal on a dispute dated back to 1999. During the original 2000 case, defendant E*Trade, an online financial services company, was found liable for maliciously and willfully misappropriating trade secrets pertaining to wireless stock trading technology acquired from the plaintiff, Ajaxo. Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act E*Trade was required under a mutually signed Non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to keep Ajaxo's trade secrets confidential. After a jury trial in 2003, E*Trade was fined $1.3 million to be paid to Ajaxo for the misappropriation and breach of NDA. The court denied Ajaxo's request for additional damages. All parties appealed. In 2005 the California courts of appeal affirmed the original ruling but remanded the case back to the trial court to determine additional damages. A jury verdict in 2008 rejected claims raised and demands for royalty damages from Ajaxo. In trade secret cases it is common for a plaintiff to seek royalty damages when they are unable to show an actual loss or that the defendant received some inequitable benefit from the misappropriation. In this case the court refused to allow evidence of royalty damages, claiming there were no net damages. Ajaxo appealed. In 2010 the California courts of appeal once again remanded the case back to the trial court reasoning that in such cases an exact quantitative measure of wrongful enrichment damages incurred by the plaintiff might not be sufficient to reject the claim of reasonable royalties based damages

References

  1. ↑ De Wolf v. Rabaud, 26 U.S. 476, 497 (1828)
  2. ↑ Campbell v. General Motors Corp. , 32 Cal. 3d 112, 117-118, 184 Cal. Rptr. 891, 649 P.2d 224 (1982).
  3. ↑ E.g., Muse v. Farmers Bank, 68 Va. (27 Gratt.) 252 (1876); Coffman v. Russell, 18 Va. (4 Munf.) 207 (1814).
  4. ↑ Va. Code § 8.01-380.
  5. ↑ Nash v. Jewell, 227 Va. 230, 315 S.E.2d 825 (1984).
  6. ↑ Va. Code § 8.01-229.
  7. ↑ Scoggins v. Douglas, 760 F.2d 535 (4th Cir. 1985).
  8. ↑ E.g., Newton v. Veney, 220 Va. 947, 265 S.E.2d 707 (1980).
  9. ↑ "From an examination of all these cases it seems possible to draw the following conclusions: (1) At any time up to verdict, if the plaintiff elected to be non-suited he was entitled to it as of right, and the court had no discretion to refuse—see Robinson v. Lawrence ((1852) 7 Exch 123, 155 ER 883); Outhwaite v. Hudson ((1852) 7 Exch 380, 155 ER 995). (2) If before verdict the plaintiff refused to be non-suited, the position is not so clear ... (3) Once the evidence had been completed and the verdict of the jury taken—or, where there was no jury, once the judge had found the facts—it seems clear that the court had an unfettered discretion, if the verdict was against the plaintiff, either to enter a nonsuit or to give judgment for the defendant." (See Clack v Arthurs Engineering Ltd [1959] 2 All ER 503 at 509, [1959] 2 QB 211 at 221, Willmer LJ quoting from A. L. Smith LJ's judgment in Fox v Star Newspaper Co Ltd in the Court of Appeal at [1898] 1 QB 636 at 637–638)
  10. ↑ Fox v Star Newspaper Co Ltd in the Court of Appeal at [1898] 1 QB 636 at 637 Chitty LJ (at 638, 639
  11. ↑ Fox v Star Newspaper Co Ltd in the Court of Appeal at [1898] 1 QB 636; Gilham v Browning and another [1998] 2 All ER 68
  12. ↑ [ dead link ]
  13. ↑ Gilham v Browning and another [1998] 2 All ER 68
  14. ↑ The Rules of the Court of Judicature (NI) 1980 SR 1980/346; The County Court Rules (Northern Ireland) 1981 SR 1981/225
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.