Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Copar Pumice Co. v. Morris

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureAppellate JurisdictionQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentRule 50Rule 50(b)Rule 50(a)summary judgment

Facts

Morris and Yantos conducted an unannounced inspection of Copar’s pumice screening plant and took twenty-four pages of documents from a trailer on site. The parties disputed whether the inspectors presented credentials, whether employee Ismael Gomez understood them, and whether Gomez consented to the search and seizure. The district court denied summary judgment because genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding consent and whether the inspectors complied with the permit and statute. After trial, the jury found a Fourth Amendment violation, and the inspectors later withdrew their Rule 50(b) motion.

Issue

After a full trial, may defendants obtain appellate review of the denial of qualified immunity and related summary judgment rulings when those rulings rested on disputed facts and the defendants voluntarily withdrew their Rule 50(b) motion? Also, did the court of appeals retain appellate jurisdiction despite the withdrawn post-judgment motion?

Rule

A voluntary withdrawal of a post-judgment motion waives appellate review of that motion and leaves the case as though the motion had never been made for Rule 4 purposes. After trial, a denial of summary judgment based on factual disputes is not reviewable on appeal from final judgment unless the issue is preserved through a Rule 50(b) motion; only denials resting on purely legal questions may be reviewed after final judgment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A jury in Denver returned a verdict against two county inspectors in a civil rights suit. Twenty days later, the inspectors filed a Rule 50(b) motion, and on day twenty-eight after judgment they also filed a notice of appeal; a month later, before the district court ruled, they voluntarily withdrew the Rule 50(b) motion.

Under the governing rule, what is the best analysis of the court of appeals' jurisdiction over the appeal?

Explanation. A voluntarily withdrawn post-judgment motion is treated as though it had never been made for Rule 4 timing purposes. If the notice of appeal was otherwise timely under Rule 4(a)(1), the court of appeals retains jurisdiction. The withdrawal does waive appellate review of the withdrawn motion, but it does not itself destroy jurisdiction. (Derived from Copar Pumice Co. v. Morris (n.d.).)