For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Appellate Practice

Feb. 6, 2024

Let’s party: Federal courts and the party presentation doctrine

Courts at all levels, including the Supreme Court, continue to struggle to color within the lines of the party presentation doctrine.

Benjamin G. Shatz

Partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP

Appellate Law (Certified), Litigation

Email: bshatz@manatt.com

Benjamin is a certified specialist in appellate law who co-chairs the Appellate Practice Group at Manatt in the firm's Los Angeles office. Exceptionally Appealing appears the first Tuesday of the month.

Benjamin E. Strauss

Litigation & Appellate Counsel, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP

Phone: (310) 312-4119

Email: BStrauss@manatt.com

Patrice Ruane

Associate, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

We’ve all seen this high school movie: With the parents out of town, a teen decides to have a party. The host valiantly tries to keep it small – but to no avail. The doorbell rings, the host answers, every student from the high school pours in, and chaos ensues. This storyline plays out in the appellate world, albeit with less property damage and comic relief, in the party presentation doctrine, which attempts to answer the question: Who decides who (or what) comes t...

To continue reading, please subscribe.

Already a subscriber?

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Related Content

Criminal Law and Procedure

Greenlaw v. U.S.

Absent government appeal or cross-appeal, appellate court may not order increase in defendant's sentence.

Criminal Law and Procedure

U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith

District court properly denied appellant's motion to dismiss indictment for violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) because statute is not limited to conduct involving fraud.

Criminal Law and Procedure

Edwards v. Vannoy

Jury unanimity rule in 'Ramos v. Louisiana' does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review.

Constitutional Law

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

Justification of race consideration in college admissions process must meet particular standards to pass Equal Protection's strict scrutiny analysis.

Civil Rights

Does v. Wasden

District court erred in dismissing appellants' ex post facto claim alleging retroactive application of Idaho's Sexual Offender Registration Notification and Community Right-to-Know Act wa...

Civil Procedure

Machowski v. 333 N. Placentia Property

Awarding attorney's fees according to schedule was an abuse of discretion when plaintiff clearly stated her intention to opt out of that method.



By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.