Also known as: interest of justice · in the interests of justice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A flexible standard authorizing a court to grant relief or take procedural action when fairness and efficiency in the administration of justice require it.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ira Irving was convicted after a bench trial on fraud charges. Newly discovered records emerged showing the key witness had fabricated testimony. Ira moved under the rule for relief. The court vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial because fairness required reexamination of the evidence.
Ismael Ibrahim sued Indigo Textiles in the Northern District for breach of a supply contract. Most witnesses and documents were located in the Southern District where the goods were delivered. Indigo moved to transfer. The court granted the motion because convenience of the parties and witnesses supported trying the case in the Southern District.
Isla Ireland filed a products liability suit against Imperial Motors in a district lacking personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Rather than dismiss, the court transferred the action to a proper district. The transfer served the interests of justice by preserving the claim instead of forcing refiling.
Israel Irving cohabited with Ingrid Innes for five years believing they were married after a flawed ceremony. When the relationship ended Ingrid sought maintenance. The court awarded her rights equivalent to a legal spouse because her good-faith belief supported equitable apportionment of support.
Isabella Ingram faced trial on conspiracy charges but a key government witness planned to leave the country permanently. The prosecution moved to depose the witness. The court granted the motion because exceptional circumstances made preservation of the testimony necessary for a fair proceeding.
Insight Consulting's CEO was indicted in a distant district for securities violations. Nearly all defense witnesses worked at company headquarters in another district. The defendant moved to transfer. The court granted the motion because convenience of witnesses and overall fairness favored trial in the district containing the headquarters.
A court may vacate a judgment and grant a new trial on the defendant's motion when fairness requires it. In a bench trial the court may also take additional testimony before entering a new judgment. The standard focuses on whether the original proceeding produced a just result.
Supporting sources
A district court may transfer a civil action to another proper district when convenience of parties and witnesses supports the move and overall fairness favors the new forum. The standard allows the court to weigh efficiency and equitable considerations beyond mere party preference.
…determination whether to admit evidence. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, however, we have determined that the interests of justice and judicial economy will best be served by deciding those issues that are properly before us and, in the process, offering guidance on the application of the Daubert standard in this…
…of Laws §§ 6, 9 (1971). [^maj-20]: See, e. g. , 28 U. S. C. § 1404(a) ("For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought"). This provision embodies in an expanded version the common-law doctrine…
…benefit the contract was made” could sue for its breach compatible in spirit with the doctrine we deem to be necessary in the interest of justice
…all, the unfavorable change in law may be given substantial weight; the district court may conclude that dismissal would not be in the interests of justice.[^maj-22] In these cases, however, the remedies that would be provided by the Scottish courts do not fall within this category. Although the relatives of the decedents may not be able to…
…risk that the death penalty was unconstitutionally imposed that, even in cases where the matter was not raised below, the "interests of justice" may impose on reviewing courts "a duty to remand [the] case for resentencing." Id., at 117, n., and 119, 102 S.Ct., at 877, n., and 878 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). Of course, "[t]he right…
Supporting sources
Yes. A district court lacking personal jurisdiction may still transfer the action to a district where it could have been brought when doing so serves the interests of justice. Dismissal is not required when transfer preserves the claim and avoids unnecessary refiling.
Supporting sources
A party may move to depose a prospective witness when exceptional circumstances exist. The court may grant the motion if fairness requires preserving the testimony for trial. The order may also require production of designated nonprivileged materials at the deposition.
Supporting sources
On the defendant's motion a court may transfer the case or counts to another district when convenience of parties, victims, and witnesses supports the move and overall fairness favors the new forum. The standard is discretionary and focuses on practical trial considerations.
Supporting sources