It has been a while but here is a Langbord update.

SanctionII

I have heard nothing in the general press or hobby press about the case for a long time. You would think that some mention of the case would pop up on the radar screen if an appeal was filed.

I decided to look at the case docket today. Doing so revealed that on 3-28-2012 a court order was filed that has marked the action closed for statistical purposes and that has placed it in the Civil Suspense File.

The 3-28-2012 order states that the court has been previously advised that the action can not proceed to disposition (aka the filing of a judgment in the case) due to the pending resolution of outstanding motions.

A hearing on post trial motions took place on 11-10-2011 and the court took the motions under submission. It is approaching 6 months since these motions were submitted for decision. There is no indication when the court will rule on the post trial motions. Earlier in the case it took the court almost one year to rule on earlier filed motions in the case.

Do any attorneys on the forums who regularly practice in federal district have any thoughts or opinions about the above and the 3-28-2012 order? If so, please enlighten us.

MidLifeCrisis

Thanks for the update. Now, what does all that mean in layman's terms?

What happened in this case anyway? I don't remember...did the government win? Did the family turn over the coins?

LanceNewmanOCC

.
thanks for the update

i do recall you stating in a much earlier post that it could take years to get the outstanding motions decided and get to a point that appeals could be filed/ruled

just seems like a case of this magnitude, it would probably be a lengthy one. many residual issues to consider when deciding a possible precedent like this

any updates during the process are appreciate though
.

Batman23

I always look forward to your Langbord posts. Thanks for the update.

Julian

Thanx for keeping it on the radar screen!

As I understand it, there can be no appeal until the judge signs off on the case.

SanctionII

In general, the system is set up to where no appeals are allowed in a lawsuit until after a "judgment" is filed in the lawsuit. A judgment is a court ruling that disposes of ALL of the case in its entirety.

This general rule is designed to prevent "piece meal litigation" where anytime someone is not happy with a ruling by a trial court judge they could immediately run to the court of appeal and have the court of appeal review the legal correctness of the trial judge's ruling. This does make sense. The rule requires that all issues on appeal be brought in a single appeal from a trial court judgment that disposes of the entire case.

There are of course exceptions to the general rule that an appeal can only be brought from a judgment that is filed in a case that disposes of the entire case (i.e. appeals are allowed from an "Interlocutory Judgment"). Further appeals are not the only way that one can seek appellate court review of something that happens at the trial court level.

In addition to "Appeals" there is also in the law an appellate review process generically called "Writs".

Appeals are things which a party to a lawsuit has as a "matter of right". In other words, any party to a lawsuit that is not happy with the decision of the trial court has an automatic right to an appeal. As long as you timely file the appeal, you can force the appellate court to hear and decide the appeal. The appellate court has no power to refuse to hear and decide an appeal

Writs are different from appeals in multiple respects. First, Writs do not give the party bringing petition for a writ an automatic right to have an appellate court hear and decide same. Whether or not to hear and decide a writ petition is discretionary with the appellate court. In California courts large numbers of writ petitions are filed in the appellate courts each year. Statistically most of these writ petitions are summarily denied (the appellate court declines to hear the petition). For those few writ petitions which are granted, the appellate court hears same and decides it on the merits after both sides have notice and an opportunity to be heard on the petition. Second, in addition to the discretionary nature of appellate court writs, these writs can also be brought at any time during the life of the lawsuit in the trial court. You do not have to wait for the trial court to issue a judgment that decides the entire case before you can bring a petition for a writ in the appellate court (i.e. a party who disagrees with a trial court ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction can bring a writ petition immediately to the appellate court requesting that the appellate court review the propriety or impropriety of the trial court ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction).

Since post trial motions were made in the Langbord case (including motions that ask the court to decide certain claims or defenses that were not heard and decided by the jury), the trial court will likely take its time in reviewing everything that went on in the case during the time it was at the trial court level. After making this review, the trial court will issue a final ruling on these motions and will issue and file a judgment that disposes of the entire case. The trial court judge probably realizes that someone will appeal this case to the court of appeal. Trial court judges do not like to have their decisions in cases overturned on appeal (that looks bad for them, looks bad for their record as a judge and has an impact on future advancement up the judicial ladder from a trial court judge to an appellate court judge). No judge wants to be told by a higher court that they made an incorrect decision.

So the Langbord case will continue to hang out in the trial court level until a ruling on the post trial motions is issued and a judgment is filed. Thereafter one or both sides can launch an appeal. Whether one side or both sides appeal is unknown at this time, but odds are that the Langbords will most likely launch an appeal.

CoinRaritiesOnline

Gosh, I certainly hope the Langbords appeal. This was a travesty of justice.

And thanks for the update SanctionII!

BAJJERFAN

<< <i>.
thanks for the update

i do recall you stating in a much earlier post that it could take years to get the outstanding motions decided and get to a point that appeals could be filed/ruled

just seems like a case of this magnitude, it would probably be a lengthy one. many residual issues to consider when deciding a possible precedent like this

any updates during the process are appreciate though
. >>



It would appear that this judge is in no particular hurry to stick it to the Guvmint.

LanceNewmanOCC

<< <i>In general, the system is set up to where no appeals are allowed in a lawsuit until after a "judgment" is filed in the lawsuit. A judgment is a court ruling that disposes of ALL of the case in its entirety.

This general rule is designed to prevent "piece meal litigation" where anytime someone is not happy with a ruling by a trial court judge they could immediately run to the court of appeal and have the court of appeal review the legal correctness of the trial judge's ruling. This does make sense. The rule requires that all issues on appeal be brought in a single appeal from a trial court judgment that disposes of the entire case.

There are of course exceptions to the general rule that an appeal can only be brought from a judgment that is filed in a case that disposes of the entire case (i.e. appeals are allowed from an "Interlocutory Judgment"). Further appeals are not the only way that one can seek appellate court review of something that happens at the trial court level.

In addition to "Appeals" there is also in the law an appellate review process generically called "Writs".

Appeals are things which a party to a lawsuit has as a "matter of right". In other words, any party to a lawsuit that is not happy with the decision of the trial court has an automatic right to an appeal. As long as you timely file the appeal, you can force the appellate court to hear and decide the appeal. The appellate court has no power to refuse to hear and decide an appeal

Writs are different from appeals in multiple respects. First, Writs do not give the party bringing petition for a writ an automatic right to have an appellate court hear and decide same. Whether or not to hear and decide a writ petition is discretionary with the appellate court. In California courts large numbers of writ petitions are filed in the appellate courts each year. Statistically most of these writ petitions are summarily denied (the appellate court declines to hear the petition). For those few writ petitions which are granted, the appellate court hears same and decides it on the merits after both sides have notice and an opportunity to be heard on the petition. Second, in addition to the discretionary nature of appellate court writs, these writs can also be brought at any time during the life of the lawsuit in the trial court. You do not have to wait for the trial court to issue a judgment that decides the entire case before you can bring a petition for a writ in the appellate court (i.e. a party who disagrees with a trial court ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction can bring a writ petition immediately to the appellate court requesting that the appellate court review the propriety or impropriety of the trial court ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction).

Since post trial motions were made in the Langbord case (including motions that ask the court to decide certain claims or defenses that were not heard and decided by the jury), the trial court will likely take its time in reviewing everything that went on in the case during the time it was at the trial court level. After making this review, the trial court will issue a final ruling on these motions and will issue and file a judgment that disposes of the entire case. The trial court judge probably realizes that someone will appeal this case to the court of appeal. Trial court judges do not like to have their decisions in cases overturned on appeal (that looks bad for them, looks bad for their record as a judge and has an impact on future advancement up the judicial ladder from a trial court judge to an appellate court judge). No judge wants to be told by a higher court that they made an incorrect decision.

So the Langbord case will continue to hang out in the trial court level until a ruling on the post trial motions is issued and a judgment is filed. Thereafter one or both sides can launch an appeal. Whether one side or both sides appeal is unknown at this time, but odds are that the Langbords will most likely launch an appeal. >>



if that doesn't represent the stage of this case, i don't know what will. well said
.

ricko

Thanks for the update Sanction..... Cheers, RickO

SanctionII

You are welcome everyone.

I reread my post in this thread that discusses judgments, appeals and writs. Talk about droning on and on.

No wonder people hate lawyers and the legal system

derryb

<< <i>You are welcome everyone.

I reread my post in this thread that discusses judgments, appeals and writs. Talk about droning on and on.

No wonder people hate lawyers and the legal system >>


Don't hate 'em, just hate paying 'em.

keyman64

Thanks for the update SanctionII. Much appreciated!

coinman23885

<< <i>Thanx for keeping it on the radar screen!

As I understand it, there can be no appeal until the judge signs off on the case. >>



This is correct. Courts speak through their written orders, and no appeal can be had without the entry of an appropriate judicial order. Now if the judge fails to enter an order and continually refuses to do so, the attorneys could petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for that circuit for a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court judge to enter an appropriate order so that a direct appeal can be made.

astrorat

<< <i>You are welcome everyone.

I reread my post in this thread that discusses judgments, appeals and writs. Talk about droning on and on.

No wonder people hate lawyers and the legal system >>

Everyone hates lawyers ... until they need one. Then they just hate the other lawyer.