Also known as: pure questions of law · question of law
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A legal issue resolved by application of legal principles to undisputed facts, committed to the court rather than the jury.
Phoebe Park and Perry Pratt sue Pinnacle Holdings in one action after both suffered losses from the same corporate policy. The court must decide whether their claims present a common question of law. That determination is a pure question of law for the judge and controls whether joinder is permitted.
Patriot Insurance moves to intervene in an ongoing suit between Prism Analytics and Prosperity Investments. The insurer asserts a defense that overlaps with the main action on a key legal point. The court treats the overlap inquiry as a pure question of law when ruling on the motion.
Parker Phillips seeks habeas relief based on a Supreme Court decision issued after his conviction became final. The court must decide whether that decision applies retroactively. Resolution of the retroactivity issue is a pure question of law decided by the judge.
Petitioner Teague, a black man, was convicted in an Illinois state court of three counts of attempted murder, two counts of armed robbery, and one count of aggravated battery by an all-white jury. During jury selection for petitioner's trial, the prosecutor used all 10 of his peremptory challenges to exclude blacks. Petitioner's counsel used one of his 10 peremptory challenges to exclude a black woman who was married to a police officer. After the prosecutor had struck six blacks, petitioner's counsel moved for a mistrial. When the prosecutor struck four more blacks, petitioner's counsel again moved for a mistrial, arguing that petitioner was entitled to a jury of his peers. The prosecutor defended the challenges by stating that he was trying to achieve a balance of men and women on the jury. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the jury appeared to be a fair one. On appeal, petitioner argued that the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges denied him the right to be tried by a jury that was representative of the community. The Illinois Appellate Court rejected petitioner's fair cross section claim. The Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in 1983. Petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Petitioner repeated his fair cross section claim, and argued that the opinions of several Justices concurring in, or dissenting from, the denial of certiorari in McCray v. New York had invited a reexamination of Swain v. Alabama. The District Court, though sympathetic to petitioner's arguments, held that it was bound by Swain and Circuit precedent. On appeal, petitioner repeated his fair cross section claim and his McCray argument. A panel of the Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner that the Sixth Amendment's fair cross section requirement applied to the petit jury and held that petitioner had made out a prima facie case of discrimination. A majority of the judges on the Court of Appeals voted to rehear the case en banc, and the panel opinion was vacated. Rehearing was postponed until after Batson v. Kentucky was decided. The Court of Appeals held that petitioner could not benefit from the rule in that case because Allen v. Hardy had held that Batson would not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. The Court of Appeals also held that petitioner's Swain claim was procedurally barred and in any event meritless. The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's fair cross section claim, holding that the fair cross section requirement was limited to the jury venire. Petitioner's conviction became final two and a half years prior to Batson.
View casePaul Peterson sues for infringement of a mechanical patent. The parties dispute the meaning of a key term in the claims. The court resolves the meaning as a pure question of law before any factual infringement issues reach the jury.
Markman owns United States Reissue Patent No. 33,054 for his Inventory Control and Reporting System for Drycleaning Stores. The patent describes a system that can monitor and report the status, location, and movement of clothing in a dry-cleaning establishment. The Markman system consists of a keyboard and data processor to generate written records for each transaction, including a bar code readable by optical detectors operated by employees, who log the progress of clothing through the dry-cleaning process. Respondent Westview's product also includes a keyboard and processor, and it lists charges for the dry-cleaning services on bar-coded tickets that can be read by portable optical detectors. Markman brought an infringement suit against Westview and Althon Enterprises, an operator of dry-cleaning establishments using Westview’s products. Part of the dispute hinged upon the meaning of the word inventory, a term found in Markman’s independent claim 1, which states that Markman’s product can maintain an inventory total and detect and localize spurious additions to inventory. The case was tried before a jury, which heard, among others, a witness produced by Markman who testified about the meaning of the claim language. After the jury compared the patent to Westview’s device, it found an infringement of Markman’s independent claim 1 and dependent claim 10. The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Westview’s deferred motion for judgment as a matter of law. One of its reasons was that the term inventory in Markman’s patent encompasses both cash inventory and the actual physical inventory of articles of clothing. The court directed a verdict on the ground that Westview’s device does not have the means to maintain an inventory total. Markman appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s judgment. Markman sought review, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View casePavel Petrov seeks immediate appeal of an order compelling production of privileged documents. The court must determine whether the order satisfies the collateral order criteria. That determination is a pure question of law.
In 2007 Norman Carpenter, a former shift supervisor at a Mohawk manufacturing facility, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging that Mohawk had terminated him in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985(2) and Georgia laws. According to Carpenter’s complaint, his termination followed an e-mail he sent to a member of Mohawk’s human resources department stating that the company was employing undocumented immigrants. At the time Carpenter sent the e-mail, he was unaware that Mohawk stood accused in a pending class-action lawsuit, Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM (ND Ga., Jan. 6, 2004), of conspiring to drive down the wages of its legal employees by knowingly hiring undocumented workers in violation of federal and state racketeering laws. Company officials directed Carpenter to meet with Mohawk’s retained counsel in the Williams case. Counsel allegedly pressured Carpenter to recant his statements about the company’s hiring practices. When Carpenter refused, Mohawk fired him under what he maintains were false pretenses. After learning of Carpenter’s complaint, the Williams plaintiffs sought an evidentiary hearing to explore his allegations. In its response, Mohawk described Carpenter’s accusations as pure fantasy and recounted the true facts of his dismissal, stating that Carpenter had attempted to have Mohawk hire an undocumented worker, that retained counsel had interviewed him during an immediate investigation, and that the company had terminated him for blatantly violating company policy. While those events unfolded in the Williams case, discovery proceeded in Carpenter’s separate action. Carpenter moved to compel Mohawk to produce information concerning his meeting with retained counsel and the company’s termination decision. Mohawk maintained that the requested information was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The District Court agreed that the privilege applied but granted the motion to compel after concluding that Mohawk had implicitly waived the privilege through its representations in the Williams case. The court declined to certify its order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b). The court stayed the ruling to allow Mohawk to pursue other appellate avenues, including a petition for mandamus or an appeal under the collateral order doctrine. Mohawk filed a notice of appeal and a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Eleventh Circuit. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291, holding that the District Court’s ruling did not qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541. The Eleventh Circuit also denied the mandamus petition. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits concerning the availability of collateral appeals in the attorney-client privilege context.
View casePhuong Pham moves for summary judgment in a defamation action. The court must decide whether any genuine dispute of material fact exists. Application of the summary judgment standard is a pure question of law.
In October 1981, The Investigator magazine published two articles entitled "The Private World of Willis Carto" and "Yockey: Profile of an American Hitler," along with a shorter introductory article. These articles portrayed respondent Liberty Lobby, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation and self-described citizens' lobby, and its founder Willis A. Carto as neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, and Fascist. Respondents filed a diversity libel action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against petitioners Jack Anderson, the publisher, Bill Adkins, and the Investigator Publishing Co., alleging that 28 statements and 2 illustrations in the articles were false and derogatory. Following discovery, petitioners moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. In support, they submitted an affidavit from Charles Bermant, the author of the articles, stating that he had spent substantial time researching from a wide variety of sources and believed the facts to be truthful, along with an appendix detailing sources for each allegedly libelous statement. Respondents opposed the motion, asserting inaccuracies and that Bermant had relied on patently unreliable sources, and presented evidence that editor William McGaw had told Adkins before publication that the articles were terrible and ridiculous. The District Court held that respondents were limited-purpose public figures to whom the New York Times standards applied. After reviewing the evidence, the District Court granted summary judgment to petitioners. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed as to 21 statements and reversed as to 9. It held that the requirement that actual malice be proved by clear and convincing evidence need not be considered at the summary judgment stage. The Supreme Court granted certiorari because the holding conflicted with decisions of several other Courts of Appeals.
View caseThe judge decides a pure question of law. The court resolves such issues as preliminary matters before evidence is presented to the jury.
A pure question of law satisfies the common-question requirement when the same legal issue will arise for all plaintiffs. The judge determines whether that requirement is met.
A controlling pure question of law with substantial ground for difference of opinion may support an immediate appeal if it materially advances termination of the litigation.
Whether a writing is completely or partially integrated is a pure question of law decided by the court as a threshold matter before applying the parol evidence rule.
…Tennessee, such persons being so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court; that there is a common question of law involved, namely, the constitutionality of Tennessee laws set forth in the Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 3-101 through Section 3-109, inclusive; that common relief is sought against all…