Beta

Flashcards Studio

Practice bar questions and get clear AI feedback on every answer.

Study Settings View Stats

Topic

Question Type

Essay Multiple Choice

Question Source

All Jurisprudence based

0 tracked cards Remedial Law, Legal and Judicial Ethics, with Practical Exercises

In a civil action for damages for breach of contract for the construction of a municipal hall, Plaintiff A obtained a final judgment against Defendant B. Several weeks after judgment, A discovers (i) a post-trial internal memo from B’s former project supervisor dated after trial admitting that B knew the work did not conform to the contract specifications and concealed this defect to win the contract, and (ii) a post-trial independent laboratory report dated after trial showing that the concrete mix installed did not conform to the contract specifications. A moves for a new trial under Rule 37 on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The trial court denies the motion. (a) Identify the doctrine governing the motion and the ground relied on. (b) State the conditions that must be proven for a valid grant of a new trial under Rule 37. (c) Apply the doctrine to the facts and decide whether a new trial should be granted, noting any limitations or alternative remedies.

Choose the Best Answer

Extrinsic fraud under Rule 37; the ground is concealment of known defects constituting extrinsic fraud procuring the judgment; the conditions are proof of fraud with intent to deceive and that the result would probably differ; Application: while concealment supports a fraud theory, the proper basis for the motion under these facts is still newly discovered evidence, so this is not the best answer. The motion is grounded on newly discovered evidence; however, the evidence is merely impeachment or cumulative and would not likely alter the outcome; Therefore, the motion should be denied. The doctrine is newly discovered evidence under Rule 37; the ground is that the evidence was discovered after judgment and could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before judgment; the conditions are: (1) evidence discovered after judgment; (2) not discoverable with due diligence before trial; (3) material and relevant to the issues; (4) would probably alter the result; (5) motion filed within a reasonable time after discovery; (6) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeachment; (7) the movant has no other adequate remedy. Application: Given a post‑trial memo admitting concealment of a defect and a post‑trial lab report showing non‑conformity, the motion should be granted; a new trial should be ordered. New trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence would be denied if the evidence could have been discovered with reasonable diligence before judgment; the movant failed to show lack of due diligence; Therefore, the motion should be denied.

Load another random question

Your Progress

No data Retention

Tracked Cards: 0
Accuracy: No data
Retained: 0

View Detailed Analytics

Difficulty Breakdown

Answer flashcards to build a real score-based difficulty breakdown.

Current Streak 0 Days

Start a streak with this card.

Suggested Decks

View All

Leech Cards

Review

No recent weak flashcards in your saved workbook.

More

Flashcards Studio

Question

Choose the Best Answer

Hello