Also known as: dispositive argument · dispositive
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Arguments presented in legal briefs or motions that, if accepted by the court, would resolve the entire case or a critical claim or defense in favor of the party making them. Such arguments receive prominent placement as major point headings because acceptance ends the need for further litigation on the merits.
Delta Dynamics faced multiple suits from individual investors after a product recall. Its lawyers argued that separate judgments would as a practical matter dispose of the interests of absent class members by impairing their ability to protect their claims. The court certified the class under the rule because the individual adjudications would be dispositive of the others.
Daphne Doyle executed a revocation of her will after her attorney advised her that a new trust would achieve the same distribution. When the trust failed for lack of proper execution, her heirs argued the revocation was ineffective because it was made to achieve a dispositive objective that did not succeed. The court reinstated the will.
Doris Duffy created a trust leaving an outright remainder to her disabled grandson. After her death the trustee petitioned to convert the remainder into a special needs trust. The court granted the modification because unanticipated circumstances made the change necessary to further the trust purposes and preserve assets for the beneficiary.
Darius Dixon established a trust for his children that required equal outright distributions at age thirty. Market changes and one child's disability made equal distribution impractical. The court modified the dispositive terms to allow staggered distributions and a special needs provision because the modification furthered the settlor's probable intention.
Deborah Dunn's will left her house to the person who cared for her during her final illness. After her death the court looked to the identity of her caregiver as an external circumstance referred to in the will. The reference had independent significance and therefore supplied the meaning of the dispositive provision.
Demetrius Douglas sued Parklane Hosiery for damages after the SEC obtained an injunction based on the same facts. The company argued that the prior equitable judgment precluded relitigation of the key issues. The court held that the earlier determination could operate by way of collateral estoppel to conclude the parties on those issues.
Parklane Hosiery Company, Inc., and eleven of its officers and directors issued a proxy statement in connection with a merger between Parklane and another corporation. Leo Shore, a stockholder of Parklane, filed a class action on behalf of stockholders in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Parklane and the individual defendants. The complaint alleged that the proxy statement was false and misleading in violation of sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related SEC rules. The complaint sought damages for the class, rescission of the merger, and recovery of costs. Before Shore’s action came to trial, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a separate suit against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The SEC complaint alleged that the proxy statement that had been issued by Parklane was materially false and misleading in essentially the same respects as those that had been alleged in the respondent's complaint. After a four-day trial, the District Court found that the proxy statement was materially false and misleading in the respects alleged, and entered a declaratory judgment to that effect. The court permanently enjoined the defendants from further violations of the securities laws and ordered them to offer rescission to shareholders who had tendered shares. The defendants did not appeal this judgment. Shore then moved for partial summary judgment in the Eastern District of New York action, asserting that the defendants were collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues resolved against them in the SEC action. The District Court denied the motion on the ground that application of collateral estoppel would deny the defendants their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that a party who has had issues of fact determined against him after a full and fair opportunity to litigate in a nonjury trial is collaterally estopped from obtaining a subsequent jury trial of these same issues of fact. Because of an intercircuit conflict with the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Rachal v. Hill, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseDispositive arguments belong under Roman-numeral point headings because acceptance of any one of them ends the case or a major claim. Subheadings then set out the logical steps that prove the point heading. Each major heading must stand alone so that the court can grant relief on that basis without reaching other issues.
Dispositive arguments, if accepted, produce victory on the entire case or a key claim without further proceedings. Supporting arguments address subsidiary points that may strengthen a position but do not by themselves resolve the dispute. Only the former receive Roman-numeral headings.
Placing dispositive arguments first allows the court to see the strongest grounds for relief immediately. If any one succeeds, the remaining issues become unnecessary. This structure respects judicial economy and mirrors the way courts often decide cases on the narrowest dispositive ground.
…fixed Board policy against variances, or that a prompt application for a variance would not have been granted. Nor is it dispositive that the case involves criminal rather than civil penalties. The applicability of the exhaustion principle to bar challenges to the legality of prosecutions is established, even where,…