Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: The question of when a winning party must cross-appeal to challenge non-determinative findings in defense of a favorable judgment was answered for the first time in Maine in the recent case of Littlefield v. Littlefield. Noting a split of authority between the federal and state courts, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court unpredictably determined that an appellee must file a cross-appeal if he seeks to attack adverse findings which, if decided differently, would adequately support the judgment. In Littlefield, the court's objective was to provide notice to opposing parties. Recognizing that this end is a legitimate concern, the question here is whether the means chosen can realistically achieve the stated goal. This note will attempt to show that the filing of a cross-appeal is rarely a guarantee of the notice which was sought by the Littlefield court. By permitting cross-appeals from non-dispositive findings, the new rule seriously undermines the "final judgment" limitation on appeals and introduces a concept of "cross-appealability" which may facilitate the application of collateral estoppel to non-determinative findings. Littlefield purports to have rejected the federal rule in favor of the state position on cross-appeals. This paper will attempt to point out that, in light of the potential problems alluded to above, the federal rule provides a more reasonable alternative.
Source: eYLS (Yale Law School)
Author: Maine Law Review
Language: English
Subfield: Law
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W6980822277
FWCI:
Cites:
Cited by:
Related to: