(Download) "Fuesting v. Zimmer" by In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Fuesting v. Zimmer
• Author : In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
• Release Date : January 22, 2006
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 56 KB

Description

This opinion resolves plaintiff-appellee Fuestings petition for rehearing and addresses the question of what relief the court of appeals has the power to award where there was prejudicial evidentiary error in the district court. Our August 30, 2005 decision in this case found prejudicial error in the district courts decision to admit Fuestings expert testimony and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Zimmer. See Fuesting v. Zimmer, 421 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 2005). Subsequently, Fuesting filed a petition for rehearing. We stayed consideration of the petition because the Supreme Court had granted a writ of certiorarion the question of whether a court of appeals can review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a civil jury verdict where the appellant failed to renew its Rule 50(a) motion after the verdict. See Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 543 U.S. 1186 (2005). We ordered the parties to file responsive memoranda, if they so chose, within 14 days of the Supreme Courts decision. On January 23, 2006, the Supreme Court rendered its decision. Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., --- U.S. ---, 126 S.Ct. 980 (2006). The parties have submitted responses, and Fuesting argues that the Unitherm decision precludes this court from awarding any relief to Zimmer because Zimmer failed to file, after the verdict, either a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law or a Rule 59 motion for a new trial. Zimmer argues that Unitherm only addresses appeals based on the sufficiency of the evidence, and does not disturb this courts decision, which was based on the improper admission of testimony. We conclude that Unitherm does not prevent us from granting Zimmer relief from the district courts error. The proper remedy, however, should have been the grant of a new trial. For reasons discussed in more detail below, we grant the petition for rehearing and vacate only the portion of our prior opinion directing the district court to enter judgment for the defendant.

PDF Ebook Download "Fuesting v. Zimmer" Online ePub Kindle