If a statute of limitations is tolled, can a higher court disallow it?

[adjusterjack]

In general, is it preferable to have a jury trial or a bench trial in a civil suit?

A jury trial would likely be preferable to the author of the story as there is more opportunity for drama.

Watch 12 Angry Men to learn why. Any of the three versions is very good.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=12+angry+men

 

[Beachwriter]

Back again with my fictional wrongful death case. Really, this is a minor bit of the novel but I want it to seem plausible. If the defendant proves that the killing of her rapist was justified, and the verdict goes against the plaintiff (rapist's family), does the plaintiff have the option to appeal the verdict? I can find examples of the defendant appealing a verdict, but not the plaintiff.

 

[Beachwriter]

A jury trial would likely be preferable to the author of the story as there is more opportunity for drama.

Watch 12 Angry Men to learn why. Any of the three versions is very good.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=12+angry+men

Worth a re-watch! I've only ever seen the Spencer Tracy version long ago. It's a fine drama, for sure!

 

[Tax Counsel]

Back again with my fictional wrongful death case. Really, this is a minor bit of the novel but I want it to seem plausible. If the defendant proves that the killing of her rapist was justified, and the verdict goes against the plaintiff (rapist's family), does the plaintiff have the option to appeal the verdict? I can find examples of the defendant appealing a verdict, but not the plaintiff.

In a civil case either plaintiff or defendant may appeal the decision. But for both parties, they cannot appeal just because they do not like the jury's decision (or judge, if a bench trial). The party filing the appeal must show that the trial judge made a significant legal error during the course of the litigation that would warrant reversing the decision. So, for example, if the judge made an error on an evidence ruling or in the instructions given to the jury, that would be grounds for appeal. The jury's determination of the facts are generally not reviewable on appeal. What that means is that one cannot appeal on the premise that that appeal court should review the evidence and make a different decision — the appeals court doesn't second guess the jury on how it viewed the evidence in the case.

 

[zddoodah]

If the defendant proves that the killing of her rapist was justified, and the verdict goes against the plaintiff (rapist's family), does the plaintiff have the option to appeal the verdict?

Yes.

But for both parties, they cannot appeal just because they do not like the jury's decision (or judge, if a bench trial).

Well...a party can do exactly this. It won't be a successful appeal, but it can be done.

The party filing the appeal must show that the trial judge made a significant legal error during the course of the litigation that would warrant reversing the decision. So, for example, if the judge made an error on an evidence ruling or in the instructions given to the jury, that would be grounds for appeal. The jury's determination of the facts are generally not reviewable on appeal. What that means is that one cannot appeal on the premise that that appeal court should review the evidence and make a different decision — the appeals court doesn't second guess the jury on how it viewed the evidence in the case.

I only disagree with this to the extent that an appeal may be based on an argument that the jury's verdict was not supported by substantial evidence. For the OP's benefit, a reversal on appeal is uncommon (probably less than 15% of the time in the aggregate), but a reversal based on a lack of substantial evidence is even more rare. It happens, but I'd guess that only 1-2% of appeals on that basis are successful.

 

[justblue]

spammer reported