Bankcard America, Inc. v. Universal
Bancard Systems, Inc. and Samuel Buchbinder and Paul
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
Alperstein case brief
203 F.3d 477
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant appellant
sought review from the judgment of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, which, after a retrial,
entered a jury verdict on its counterclaims, finding no Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act violations by plaintiff
appellee, and struck a verdict awarding damages for breach of
contract to defendant appellant.
FACTS: After a retrial, defendant appellant sought review of the judgment that plaintiff appellee had not breached its contract or violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
ANALYSIS:
A new trial should not have been ordered on breach of contract. Although giving the jury exhibits that had not been admitted into evidence was error, they were cumulative, or had not been preserved for appeal. Admitting evidence of settlement talks was not erroneous when defendant appellant needed to refute plaintiff appellee's charges by explaining that it had acted pursuant to the expected settlement terms.The judgment from the first trial was reinstated, however, a new trial on the issue of RICO violations was proper. Over plaintiff-appellee's objection, the original jury instructions listed many alleged predicate acts that lacked evidentiary support or did not charge indictable actions, and lacked an explanation of the requisite fraudulent intent. These were serious errors warranting a new trial. The judgment on RICO violations was affirmed.
CONCLUSION: On appeal from a retrial, granting of a new trial, and judgment on a retrial was affirmed as to defendant appellant's racketeering claim; but granting a new trial on a breach of contract claim was reversed, and the judgment from the first trial was reinstated. The case was remanded for entry of an amended judgment.
FACTS: After a retrial, defendant appellant sought review of the judgment that plaintiff appellee had not breached its contract or violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
ANALYSIS:
A new trial should not have been ordered on breach of contract. Although giving the jury exhibits that had not been admitted into evidence was error, they were cumulative, or had not been preserved for appeal. Admitting evidence of settlement talks was not erroneous when defendant appellant needed to refute plaintiff appellee's charges by explaining that it had acted pursuant to the expected settlement terms.The judgment from the first trial was reinstated, however, a new trial on the issue of RICO violations was proper. Over plaintiff-appellee's objection, the original jury instructions listed many alleged predicate acts that lacked evidentiary support or did not charge indictable actions, and lacked an explanation of the requisite fraudulent intent. These were serious errors warranting a new trial. The judgment on RICO violations was affirmed.
CONCLUSION: On appeal from a retrial, granting of a new trial, and judgment on a retrial was affirmed as to defendant appellant's racketeering claim; but granting a new trial on a breach of contract claim was reversed, and the judgment from the first trial was reinstated. The case was remanded for entry of an amended judgment.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment