Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Hall v. Hall

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Hall v. Hall
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: January 16, 2018
Decided: March 27, 2018
Outcome
Third Circuit reversed
Vote
9 -0 to reverse
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch


Hall v. Hall is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on January 16, 2018. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Ethlyn Hall filed a lawsuit against her son and made her daughter the sole trustee of Ethlyn's trust. Following Ethlyn's death, her daughter took over the suit as personal representative of Ethlyn's estate. Ethlyn's son then filed suit against his sister. The two lawsuits were consolidated. In the estate's suit, the district court issued a final ruling, and the estate immediately appealed. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit concluded it did not have jurisdiction over the case because a claim in Ethlyn's son's suit against his sister was still pending. The estate appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
  • The issue: When two or more consolidated cases arise in the same district, should the entry of a final judgment in only one case trigger the appeal-clock for that case?[1]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court voted uannimously to reverse the Third Circuit's ruling.[2]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[3]

    Background

    Legal question

    This was a case about the timing of appeals in consolidated cases.

    Note: The following explanation was based on an understanding of the law when the U.S. Supreme Court heard considered this case.

    Generally, a court of appeals may only hear an appeal after the lower court has entered a final judgment in the case. For the sake of efficiency, district courts will sometimes consolidate cases that concern the same parties, the same evidence, or similar claims. Consolidation of cases is governed by Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a case called Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp. The court held that for consolidated cases arising in different districts, the appeals-clock—the time at which a party has the right to appeal and an appellate court has jurisdiction over the appeal—begins at the time there is a single final judgment in one of the cases. However, Gelboim did not address whether the same appellate jurisdiction rule applied when the consolidated cases arose in the same district.[1]

    Case background

    Samuel Hall, son of Ethlyn Hall, acted as his mother's attorney and conducted business transactions for her. Following a dispute between Ethlyn and Samuel, Ethlyn filed a lawsuit against Samuel and made her daughter Elsa Hall the sole successor trustee of Ethlyn's trust. Following Ethlyn's death, Elsa took over management of the lawsuit against Samuel as personal representative of her mother's estate and trustee of her mother's trust. Samuel then filed a lawsuit against Elsa for, among other claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court consolidated the estate's claims and Samuel's claims. At trial, the jury rejected all of the estate's claims but found in Samuel's favor in his claim against Elsa. Finding that the jury may have based its verdict in Samuel's favor on incorrect legal grounds, the district court ordered a new trial on Samuel's claims. Samuel filed a motion with the court to reconsider its order for a new trial.[3]

    Meanwhile, on behalf of the estate, Elsa immediately appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on the estate's claims. In response, Samuel argued that the Third Circuit lacked jurisdiction over the estate's claims because his claims in the consolidated case were still pending in the district court.[3]

    Panel opinion

    On appeal, the Third Circuit concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the estate's claims while Samuel's claims were still pending in the district court.[3] The court noted, "When two cases have been consolidated for all purposes, a final decision on one set of claims is generally not appealable while the second set remains pending." It continued:

    “ However, we do not employ a bright line rule and instead consider on a case-by-case basis whether a less-than-complete judgment is appealable. To make that determination, we consider the overlap among the claims, the relationship of the various parties, and the likelihood of the claims being tried together. Considering those factors, as well as the underlying question of whether justice would be best served and judicial economy not compromised if separate appeals were permitted, we conclude that the Estate’s appeal is not properly before us at this time.[4][3][5] ”

    Petitioner's challenge

    Elsa Hall, as personal representative of the Estate of Ethlyn Hall and successor trustee of the Ethlyn Louise Hall Family Trust, the petitioner, challenged the holding of the Third Circuit. She argued that the Third Circuit erred in concluding that a claim in a case that has been consolidated with another case may not be appealed until all claims in the consolidated cases are finalized.

    Certiorari granted

    On March 17, 2017, Elsa Hall, as personal representative of the Estate of Ethlyn Hall and successor trustee of the Ethlyn Louise Hall Family Trust, the petitioner, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Elsa's request for certiorari on September 28, 2017. Argument in the case was held on January 16, 2018.[1][6]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "Gelboim held that for cases consolidated in multidistrict litigation, a final judgment in a single case triggers the "appeal-clock" for that case. But, by limiting its holding to multidistrict litigation, Gelboim left the split unresolved for cases consolidated in a single district under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42.

    The question presented is:

    Should the clarity Gelboim gave to multidistrict cases be extended to single district consolidated cases, so that the entry of a final judgment in only one case triggers the appeal-clock for that case?"[1]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[7]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    Decision

    The court voted 9 -0 to reverse the Third Circuit's ruling.[2]

    Opinion

    Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the unanimous opinion of the court.

    Roberts wrote, "Whether the judgment entered in the trust case is an immediately appealable final decision turns on the effect of consolidation under Rule 42(a)...But the meaning of 'consolidate' in the present context is ambiguous." Because of that ambiguity, he continued, "this is not a plain meaning case."

    “ It is instead about a term—consolidate—with a legal lineage stretching back at least to the first federal consolidation statute, enacted by Congress in 1813. Act of July 22, 1813, §3, 3 Stat. 21 (later codified as Rev. Stat. §921 and 28 U. S. C. §734 (1934 ed.)). Over 125 years, this Court, along with the courts of appeals and leading treatises, interpreted that term to mean the joining together—but not the complete merger—of constituent cases. Those authorities particularly emphasized that constituent cases remained independent when it came to judgments and appeals. Rule 42(a), promulgated in 1938, was expressly based on the 1813 statute. The history against which Rule 42(a) was adopted resolves any ambiguity regarding the meaning of 'consolidate' in subsection (a)(2). It makes clear that one of multiple cases consolidated under the Rule retains its independent character, at least to the extent it is appealable when finally resolved, regardless of any ongoing proceedings in the other cases.[2][5] ”


    Therefore, Roberts concluded, a final ruling in one case among consolidated cases may be immediately appealed, and the Third Circuit had jurisdiction to consider the estate's appeal.[2]

    Text of the opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Court of the United States, Hall v. Hall Question Presented, September 28, 2017
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 United States Supreme Court, "Hall v. Hall Opinion," March 27, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Hall v. Hall, February 10, 2017
    4. ↑ Internal citations and quotations omitted.
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Hall v. Hall" Petition for a writ of certiorari, March 17, 2017
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Byrd v. United States, argued January 16, 2018
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Hall v. Hall, argued January 16, 2018
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Hall_v._Hall&oldid=8891702"