Lawsuit Limbo: Changing Laws, Changing Cases

A lawsuit is a civil proceeding by one or more parties (the plaintiff or claimant) against one or more parties (the defendant) in a civil court of law. In the United States, civil lawsuits generally proceed through distinct steps: pleadings, discovery, trial, and possibly an appeal. However, the law applied in a lawsuit can change, and this can occur when a new case comes out during the pre-trial or trial stage that would significantly impact the case, or when a new statute is introduced. In such cases, the court may take the change in law into account, depending on whether it is a civil or criminal case.

Civil cases involving new statutes

When it comes to civil cases involving new statutes, it's important to understand how these cases are handled and how laws may be applied retroactively. Here are some detailed insights on this topic:

Understanding Civil Cases

Civil cases typically involve legal disputes between two or more parties, often individuals or institutions like businesses. These cases usually arise from conflicts related to money or other forms of compensation. The party initiating the case, known as the plaintiff, files a complaint with the court, detailing their damages or injuries and explaining how the defendant's actions caused them harm. The plaintiff may seek monetary compensation or request the court to order the defendant to stop their harmful conduct.

New Statutes During a Civil Case

Now, let's explore the scenario where a new statute is introduced after a civil lawsuit has been filed. In such cases, the court generally applies the law that was in effect at the time the suit was filed. However, there may be exceptions. If the new statute is specifically written to be retroactive, it could be applied to the ongoing case. Additionally, in some jurisdictions, ameliorative changes in the law may apply to non-final cases, where the right to appeal has not been exhausted, unless the statute states otherwise.

Impact on Case Strategy

The introduction of a new statute during a civil case can significantly impact the strategies employed by both the plaintiff and the defendant. For example, if a new statute strengthens the plaintiff's argument or provides additional grounds for seeking relief, the plaintiff's legal team may choose to amend their arguments or evidence to align with the new law. On the other hand, if the new statute negatively impacts the plaintiff's case, they may seek alternative avenues for relief or explore settlement options to avoid an unfavourable outcome.

Case Management and Resolution

During the course of a civil case, there are various stages, including pre-filing, initial pleading, discovery, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial. The "discovery" stage is particularly important, as it allows both sides to gather information, exchange evidence, and prepare for trial. In cases involving new statutes, the discovery process may be influenced by the updated legal framework, potentially impacting the strategies and arguments presented by both parties.

In summary, civil cases involving new statutes can be complex, and the application of the new law will depend on the specific circumstances and the jurisdiction in which the case is being heard. It is always advisable to seek legal counsel to understand how changes in the law may impact an ongoing case and to make informed decisions accordingly.

Criminal cases and new laws

In criminal cases, the application of new laws when legislation changes during an ongoing trial can be complex. The general principle is that a new criminal law that increases penalties for a crime cannot be applied retroactively to acts committed before the law was enacted. Such laws are considered ex post facto laws and are prohibited in the United States under the Constitution.

If new legislation increases the punishment for a crime, the case will continue under the old laws to avoid ex post facto punishment. However, if the new law reduces the punishment or adds non-punitive consequences for violating the law, the new law generally takes effect immediately. An example of a non-punitive consequence is the addition of a second registration requirement for sex offenders, which serves to protect the public without imposing additional punishment.

In most cases, legislatures avoid this issue by specifying that new laws apply only to crimes committed after their passage, while older laws remain in effect for crimes committed previously. Nevertheless, the introduction of new laws can still create confusion, especially when cases are ongoing or when individuals are awaiting trial.

In the context of criminal trials, motions for a new trial can be made by defendants if they believe their right to a fair trial was violated or if significant errors or new exculpatory evidence emerges. While it is challenging to succeed with such motions, they can be granted by the trial judge if a serious injustice occurred, such as bias or prejudice by jury members.

Retroactivity of new laws

The retroactive application of new laws refers to the implementation of new legislation on previous cases or individuals who have already been sentenced. In criminal cases, retroactivity can change the legal consequences or status of past actions, such as increasing or decreasing legal sanctions or eliminating them altogether.

In general, laws are applied prospectively and not retroactively, as expressed in the legal maxim "lex prospicit, non respicit" (the law looks forward and not backward). This principle is based on the idea that retroactive legislation tends to be unjust and oppressive, as it can punish individuals for violating laws that were not yet enacted, unsettle vested rights, or disturb the legal effect of prior transactions. This is considered unconstitutional in many jurisdictions.

However, there are instances where laws can be applied retroactively. These include:

• If the law specifically states that it should be applied retroactively, but it cannot be an ex post facto law, which criminalises an act that was innocent when done.
• If the law is remedial or procedural in nature, as there are no vested rights in rules of procedure.
• If the law is penal but favourable to the accused or convict, provided they are not a habitual offender.
• If the law addresses an emergency situation and falls within the police power of the government.
• If the law is curative, provided it does not impair vested rights or affect final judgments.
• If a substantive right is being declared for the first time, as long as vested rights are not impaired.

In the United States, the legality of retroactively applied laws depends on whether they improve or worsen the situation of those affected. If the law worsens the situation, it is known as an "ex post facto" law and is prohibited by the US Constitution. However, the Constitution does not prohibit laws that retroactively reduce the burden on individuals who have already been sentenced.

Ex post facto laws

The Latin translation of ex post facto is "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (state laws). The US Supreme Court has defined the scope of ex post facto laws through the following restrictions:

> "It is settled, by decisions of this Court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with a crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto."

In Beazell v. Ohio (1925), the Supreme Court held that a new criminal law that increases penalties for a crime would not apply to actions committed before the law was passed, as that would be an invalid ex post facto law. However, ameliorative changes in criminal law generally apply to all non-final cases, unless the statute states otherwise.

The prohibition on ex post facto laws does not apply to crimes committed outside the jurisdiction of the United States against the laws of a foreign country. At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws that retroactively criminalize behavior, but this prohibition does not attach as strictly to judicial decisions.

Civil cases and constitutional questions

In the United States, civil cases involve legal disputes between two or more parties. They can include lawsuits for breach of contract, personal injury, divorce proceedings, child custody cases, and lawsuits against government officials and agencies. Civil suits allege violations of civil laws and the U.S. Constitution. Federal courts are authorised to hear civil cases that involve questions regarding the Constitution, federal law, disputes among residents of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, and cases where the U.S. government is a plaintiff or defendant.

When a law changes during a civil lawsuit, the new law generally applies, especially in civil cases. However, if the new law increases penalties for a crime, it would not apply retroactively as it would be an invalid ex post facto law. The Constitution forbids Congress from passing such laws, which punish someone 'after the fact' for behaviour that was legal at the time.

In civil cases, the plaintiff files a complaint with the court, describing their damages or injury, explaining how the defendant caused the harm, and asking for relief. The defendant then files an answer to the complaint, and the judge issues a scheduling order for the trial. Both sides may file motions and gather evidence through the discovery process. The court may also order other types of relief, such as a declaration of the legal rights of the plaintiff.

During the trial, the plaintiff must convince the jury by a "preponderance of the evidence" that the defendant is responsible for the harm suffered. After the trial, either party may appeal the decision.

Frequently asked questions