Motion for new trial?

[aren]

Missouri. I am trying to find grounds to get a new hearing in a flooding dispute. The city denied knowledge of documents which they gave to me and the judge wouldn't enter my experts report which summarized the documents and gave his opinion of the flooding issue because the city claimed they didn't know where the documents came from. The city petitioned for an injuction so I had no choice but to try best I could. Due to finances I was pro se. The judge also called the city's attorney into his office to discuss the case without me. Aren't both sides supposed to be included? I need to get a new trial and find an attorney that would take this matter on contingency.

 

[latigo]

Missouri. I am trying to find grounds to get a new hearing in a flooding dispute. The city denied knowledge of documents which they gave to me and the judge wouldn't enter my experts report which summarized the documents and gave his opinion of the flooding issue because the city claimed they didn't know where the documents came from. The city petitioned for an injunction so I had no choice but to try best I could. Due to finances I was pro se. The judge also called the city's attorney into his office to discuss the case without me. Aren't both sides supposed to be included? I need to get a new trial and find an attorney that would take this matter on contingency.

I have the feeling that you are of the mind that new trials are granted as a matter of course. They are not. Plus they are infrequently granted and never because a party is simply unsatisfied with the results of the trial.

Adequate reasons or grounds must be shown. In some states those reason are listed by law such as the judgment is against the weight of the evidence, newly discovered evidence, etc.. But not so in your state of Missouri. What Missouri says about the grounds for a motion and order for a new trial is this:

“The court may grant a new trial of any issue upon good cause shown. * * * * (R. 78.01 Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure)

But you haven’t indicated anything that would appear to constitute “good cause” warranting the granting of a new trial on any issues. Also, the reason your “expert’s reports and opinions” were not admitted is that they were hearsay.

And you certainly wouldn’t be permitted to successfully ground your motion on newly discovered evidence with respect to those same reports and opinions. Nor any "new" evidence that was available to you at the time of the trial

Also, the motion for new trial must be filed not latter than 30-days following the entry of the judgment. (R. 78.04)
______________

Regarding your suggestion of judicial partiality:

If you were not present in the judge’s chambers (an likely never were) how do you know for a fact that the judge met with the city attorney, let alone what they talked about or that the judge set up such a meet by a telephone call? (I have a suspicion that you are simply adding garnishment here.)
______________

You are free of course to start canvassing the law offices in your area, but I fear that your chances of finding a lawyer to do what you wish and for what you wish are zero.

 

[aren]

I know he met with the attorney because he said during the trial, "S******, what is going on here. I want to see in my office." On the way out of his office he said, "and I want to see all the evidence." It was the opinion of all four people there with me that he was obviously discussing this case with the oppossing side.

 

[aren]

The report contained his expert opinion after reviewing documents provided by the city and extensive topography of the area. He has over 50 years experience in his field and he is an expert licensed in 13 states.

 

[antrc170]

Did you file an appeal? What was the judgement?

 

[antrc170]

IF you can file within the 30 day guideline then you, in my opinion, have a good argument for a new trial. You need to have all relavant witness file an avadavit detailing that the judge spoke with the opposing council without your presence and the judge asked to see all of the evidence. This clearly shows a judicial bias via ex parte communication which is barred by Missouri law.

MO 510.330 New Trial
MO 510.370 Thirty day time limit for new trial
MO 510-350 New Trial with Avadavits
MO SC Rules 2.03 Canon 3 (7) Addresses ex parte communication with judge

 

[aren]

Did you file an appeal? What was the judgement?

No, there has been no appeal filed yet. The judge instructed the city to draft a judgment and they are in the process.

 

[aren]

To enter a report from an expert, that "expert" has to testify & be considered and "expert" by the court. Just because someone says he is an expert does not make him one ... its up to the judge to decide & this must come from testimony & cross-examination vetting.

I brought up his experience, the city didn't reject him as an expert and the
Judge said, "Well he is an expert." Does that make him considered by the court as an expert?

 

[antrc170]

You'll have to wait for the judgement before filing for an appeal, or new trial based on the reasons I mentioned earlier. It is up to the court to declare someone an expert or not. You can call them as a witness, have him present his education and experience plus any previous times he's been declared an expert and you ask the court that he be considered such. The opposing side then has the opportunity to challenge his creditials.