Also known as: party in litigation · parties to litigation · litigants · litigation parties
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The individuals or entities who assert claims or defend against them in a judicial proceeding.
Pearl Porter sued Prime Logistics for employment discrimination. During jury selection the company's lawyer used peremptory challenges to remove all female members of the venire. The court sustained the objection and seated the struck jurors because the strikes rested solely on gender.
Pamela Phillips sued Paragon Construction for breach of contract. The defense attorney struck every Black prospective juror. The trial court disallowed the strikes because jury selection is a state function and private litigants may not discriminate on race.
Pierce Patterson left his in-house role at Progressive Healthcare and joined a firm representing a competitor in a contract dispute. The court disqualified the entire firm because Patterson had substantial responsibility for the same matter while at the company and no effective screen was implemented.
Preston Pratt owned bonds issued by the city that was a defendant in a pending tort case before him. The judicial conduct commission imposed discipline because the ongoing financial interest created an appearance of impropriety even though the judge had not ruled on any bond-related issue.
Judge Paula Pierce repeatedly directed guilty verdicts in criminal trials, proceeded without counsel present, and failed to advise defendants of appeal rights. The commission removed her for gross incompetence that violated the duty of diligence owed to all litigants.
Perry Pratt filed a complaint against Patriot Insurance alleging an antitrust conspiracy but supplied only parallel conduct without additional facts. The court dismissed the action because the allegations did not state a plausible claim for relief.
In 1984 the divestiture of AT&T's local telephone business created seven regional service monopolies known as Regional Bell Operating Companies or Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. More than a decade later Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which restructured local telephone markets and imposed duties on the ILECs to facilitate entry by competitive local exchange carriers through resale of services at wholesale rates, leasing of unbundled network elements, or interconnection of facilities. William Twombly and Lawrence Marcus filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a putative class of all subscribers of local telephone and high-speed internet services from February 8, 1996 to the present. They named as defendants four consolidated ILECs: BellSouth Corporation, Qwest Communications International Inc., SBC Communications Inc., and Verizon Communications Inc. The complaint alleged that these ILECs conspired to restrain trade by engaging in parallel conduct to inhibit CLECs, including unfair agreements for network access, inferior connections, overcharging, and billing practices designed to sabotage CLEC customer relations. The complaint further alleged that the ILECs agreed not to compete against one another in their respective territories. This agreement was inferred from their common failure to pursue business opportunities in contiguous markets and from a statement by Qwest CEO Richard Notebaert that competing in another ILEC's territory might be a good way to turn a quick dollar but that does not make it right. The complaint asserted that in light of the absence of meaningful competition among the ILECs and their parallel course of conduct the defendants had entered into a contract combination or conspiracy to prevent competitive entry and to allocate customers and markets. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. It concluded that the alleged parallel behavior was fully explained by each ILEC's independent interest in defending its own territory and that the complaint did not allege facts suggesting the decision to refrain from competing elsewhere was contrary to the ILECs' apparent economic interests. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that plus factors need not be pleaded and that allegations of parallel conduct suffice if they leave open the possibility of collusion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the proper standard for pleading an antitrust conspiracy through allegations of parallel conduct.
View caseThe nongovernmental corporate defendant must file a statement identifying any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning ten percent or more of its stock. The prosecutor must make a comparable disclosure for any organizational victim unless good cause is shown.
Supporting sources
Jury selection is a traditional public function performed with significant court participation. Therefore private litigants may not exercise peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner.
Supporting sources
The lawyer is disqualified if the lawyer had personal and substantial responsibility for the matter at the company. Absent prompt and effective screening the entire firm is also disqualified.
Supporting sources
No. Continued ownership creates an appearance of impropriety and potential conflict even if the judge does not participate in any decision affecting the bonds.
Supporting sources
…recognition of their relationships, along with corresponding government benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs. , 489 U.S.…