In this episode, Douglas Lang and Booker T. Shaw are joined by Carl Pesce and Dawn M. Wright to discuss the nuances of appellate litigation, focusing on error preservation as a crucial element of appellate strategy. Through discussion of recent federal appeals, specifically Johnson v. Moring and Stanley v. Macomb County, Michigan, the hosts highlight how a party’s failure to comply with Federal Rule 50 can have far-reaching consequences on both federal and state appeals. The practical impact extends to administrative appeals and enforcement proceedings, where the stakes of error preservation and timely objections are equally significant.

The team discusses real-world trial issues, such as the proper timing for motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), and the necessity to renew these motions post-verdict to safeguard appellate rights. The episode emphasizes that without careful attention to error preservation—including challenges to jury instructions and awareness of nonjurisdictional claims processing rules—even the best-crafted appellate strategies can falter. Lessons drawn from the discussed cases focus on the critical role of procedural rigor not only in class action appeals but also in the broader contexts of administrative law and Supreme Court advocacy, where a single missed step can determine the trajectory of appellate review.

To learn more, visit: https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/

Key Topics Discussed:

• The importance of meticulous error preservation in appellate litigation, including federal appeals, state appeals, and administrative appeals
• Key strategies for attacking adverse jury verdicts, particularly through timely motions under Federal Rule 50, and their role in error preservation
• The impact of incomplete objections or missed motions on the ability to challenge agency actions and enforcement proceedings in the administrative law context
• Analysis of real appellate cases demonstrating why both parties (plaintiff and defendant) must be proactive in raising and responding to procedural defects for a successful appellate strategy
• Distinctions between mere scintilla of evidence and substantial evidence in the eyes of appellate courts are relevant in both class action appeals and broader appellate litigation
• Discussion on how failures in properly addressing jury instructions and other trial errors can foreclose the opportunity for Supreme Court advocacy and higher-level appellate review