Dupree v. Younger
Issues
To preserve the issue for appeal, must a party reassert a purely legal issue rejected at summary judgment in a post-trial motion?
This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether litigants can preserve purely legal issues for appellate review without having to raise such issues in a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law. This case also asks whether a trial court’s rejection of a litigant’s motion for summary judgment as a matter of law constitutes a final judgment subject to appellate review. Petitioner Neil Dupree argues that the Court should allow the preservation for appeal of purely legal issues rejected by the trial court in summary judgment without raising them again in a Rule 50 motion, according to the principles of the final judgment rule and interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent Kevin Younger counters that the Court must require litigants to file a Rule 50 motion to preserve legal issues for appellate review because a rejection of a motion for summary judgment does not constitute an appealable final judgment. This case also has implications for judicial efficiency and economy.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether to preserve the issue for appellate review a party must reassert in a post-trial motion a purely legal issue rejected at summary judgment.
In September of 2013, three prison guards attacked Respondent Kevin Younger while he was being held as a pretrial detainee at the Maryland Reception, Diagnostic & Classification Center (“MRDCC”), a state prison in Baltimore. Younger v. Dupree at 3.
Additional Resources
- John Elwood, Relist-Palooza: Religious Exercise, the False Claims Act, Takings Clause, RICO, Bank Secrecy, and More, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 11, 2023).
- Kalvis Golde, In Maryland Prison-Assault Case, A Request to Clarify an Important Procedural Question, SCOTUSblog (Sept. 23, 2022).
- Dan Schweitzer, Supreme Court Report: Dupree v. Younger, 22-210, National Association of Attorneys General (Jan. 20, 2023).