Lawsuit Information Center

This blog deals with big personal injury lawsuits across the country. These lawsuits typically involve class actions, multidistrict litigation, and mass torts against corporations for their defective products, medications, or their general negligence. But we also talk about motor vehicle accident and malpractice claims, too.  For all of these cases, you are almost invariably going to need an expert to testify if you want to get your case to a jury.  Experts are obviously different from the typical fact witness. This post should give you a basic understanding of the nuances of expert witnesses and testimony.

Continue reading

Once a jury hands down their verdict, the case is over, right? Sometimes, but not always. At the close of trial, both sides generally have the ability to appeal certain issues or things that may not have gone their way. Most important to remember here though: parties can only appeal legal issues, not factual ones. So an appeal should not be thought of as another opportunity to try a case. Instead, appeals are there to correct mistakes or misapplications of law. Should they determine that a new trial is warranted, appeals courts have the ability to order one. But they are strictly there to determine legal issues, not factual ones.

Framework For Appeals

Every state is different, meaning every court system is different. Since this blog covers issues pertaining to the national personal injury community, I will use the federal appeals process to lay out how things work. Granted, the federal appeals courts share some similarities with many states (especially Maryland), so this should give you an idea of how things work from state to state.

The federal court system is three-tiered. There are the trial courts, which are referred to as Federal District Courts. There are the intermediate appeals courts, which are called Federal Circuit Courts. And the “court of last resort” in the federal system is the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The state of Maryland has a similar system with trial courts, an intermediate appeals court, and a state court of last resort.

Continue reading

Jurisdiction and venue often arise in the context of “forum shopping” when filing a lawsuit.

Unquestionably, it is better to file a lawsuit in some places compared to others and good lawyering requires careful consideration of venue and jurisdiction and the distinction between the two.

In many jurisdictions, like Maryland and Virginia, one or two places tend to be the preferred stop for plaintiffs’ lawyers for personal injury lawsuits.

To better understand  “forum shopping,” you have to understand the concept of a “forum” in the first place, which requires an understanding of the difference between personal jurisdiction and venue. Before we distinguish jurisdiction from venue, let’s talk about them both.

What Is Jurisdiction?

Personal jurisdiction is an incredibly important piece of the puzzle when putting together a lawsuit. It boils down to is a court’s ability to exercise its power over an entity, whether that is a person, business, trust, etc.

For example, say you are a Maryland resident, it would feel unfair if an Oklahoma court could render a judgment over you if you have no connections to that state. That is where the doctrine of jurisdiction comes into play: it is all about the court’s ability to bring you under its power.

Continue reading

The American civil justice system allows for one type of recovery in personal injury cases: damages. Damages, or compensation, can manifest themselves in a few different forms in personal injury cases. People tend to throw around terms such as “general damages,” “special damages,” “non-economic,” and “economic” damages, so this post should help you differentiate between these various types of damage awards.

Continue reading

Big changes are coming to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A few of these changes make some pretty significant amendments to language in the discovery rules. Depending on how they are applied and interpreted, there is real potential for a reduction in the amount of information that can be discovered, which would reduce the cost of litigation across the board.

The Changes 

Here’s a quick breakdown of the changes that were approved by the Supreme Court in April:

1. Getting rid of the language in Rule 26 that allows for discovery of information “that may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
2. Relying on a balancing test to limit the scope of discovery.
3. Making fee-shifting a bigger deal when handling protective orders.
   

   Will amendments to the FRCP change the landscape of discovery in federal courts?

4. Requiring objections to requests for production to state if documents are actually being withheld as a result of the objection.
5. Making changes to how electronically stored information (ESI) is preserved and destroyed.
6. Getting rid of the appendix of forms.
7. Reducing the time to serve a summons after filing a complaint by 30 days.
8. Reducing the time for a court to enter a scheduling order by 30 days.

What This Means For Discovery

Changes in discovery rules is a big deal.  We have been all playing under the old rules for a long time now.  This is a big change.  Discovery is ALWAYS a battlefield in civil litigation. We are all looking for some angle to advance our case in a way that increases (plaintiffs, the good guys) the value of the case.

Continue reading