​

Yes—but only on narrow, treaty-based grounds, and the party resisting recognition ordinarily carries the burden of proving them. A U.S. court does not rehear the international arbitration or refuse enforcement merely because the arbitrators may have misread the contract, weighed evidence differently, or applied law in a way the losing party considers incorrect. The analysis changes materially depending on where the arbitration was seated. A U.S. court sitting in the primary j

Yes, an appellate court may reverse or modify a judgment that calculates prejudgment interest incorrectly, omits a legally required setoff, applies the wrong settlement credit, or permits two recoveries for the same injury. The standard of review depends on what actually went wrong: statutory interpretation and other legal questions are commonly reviewed de novo, factual findings receive greater deference, and discretionary or equitable decisions may be reviewed for abuse of

Yes. A civil RICO dismissal, summary judgment, liability verdict, or treble-damages judgment may be reversed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth or Eleventh Circuit when the district court committed a preserved, harmful error. But a successful appeal ordinarily requires more than arguing that the trial court viewed a complicated business dispute incorrectly: the appellant must identify the governing RICO element, the procedural standard, the record supporting or defea

Appellate courts generally review the grant or denial of a noncompete or nonsolicitation injunction for abuse of discretion, but they review embedded legal questions—such as contract interpretation, statutory coverage, choice of law, and the correct injunction test—de novo. Findings about breach, customer relationships, confidential information, and threatened harm receive more deferential review when supported by the injunction record. These appeals move quickly because the

The prevailing party after mixed results is usually the party that achieved the litigation’s most important practical and contractual objectives—not necessarily the party that won the most claims or recovered any amount of money. Depending on the fee clause, governing law, and structure of the claims, a court may identify one prevailing party, different prevailing parties on distinct claims, or, in an exceptional case, no prevailing party at all. On appeal, interpretation of

Yes. A judicial-dissolution, corporate-deadlock, or shareholder-oppression judgment may be reversed when the trial court applied the wrong statutory test, entered relief unsupported by its findings or evidence, disregarded a controlling shareholder agreement, used an unauthorized remedy, or committed a preserved procedural error that affected the result. But these appeals rarely turn on one universal standard of review. Statutory interpretation and summary judgment are genera

Florida appellate courts generally review the legal validity of a proposal for settlement and statutory entitlement to fees de novo, while reviewing a trial court’s good-faith ruling and the amount awarded for abuse of discretion. The result often turns less on who “won” the lawsuit than on whether the proposal complied with section 768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, whether the statutory 25% threshold was calculated correctly, and whether the fee judgment cont

Appellate courts generally review the meaning and applicability of the Uniform Commercial Code de novo, but they defer to properly supported factual findings and jury determinations. A UCC judgment may be reversed when the trial court applied the wrong UCC article, misinterpreted the parties’ agreement or governing statute, resolved genuinely disputed commercial facts on summary judgment, shifted a statutory burden incorrectly, or entered a deficiency, damages award, or injun

Yes. A franchise judgment may be reversed when the trial court misread the franchise agreement, applied the wrong termination or renewal standard, ignored a controlling statute, resolved genuinely disputed facts on summary judgment, admitted or excluded consequential evidence improperly, or entered damages or injunctive relief unsupported by the record. Reversal is harder when the challenged ruling rests on supported factual findings, credibility determinations, an unpreserve

Appellate courts usually review the legal requirements for recognizing a foreign judgment de novo, while giving appropriate deference to supported factual findings and discretionary rulings. The outcome often turns on classification: a sister-state judgment receives full-faith-and-credit treatment, a foreign-country money judgment proceeds under state recognition law and comity principles, and an international arbitral award follows a different treaty and statutory framework.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 can change the economics of a lawsuit—and the appeal—when a claimant rejects an offer of judgment and ultimately obtains a judgment no more favorable than the offer. The offeree may lose the right to recover qualifying post-offer costs and may have to pay the offeror’s qualifying post-offer costs; in some statutory cases, “costs” can include attorney’s fees. But Rule 68 is not a general loser-pays rule. Its effect depends on the offer’s lang

The parties may agree to request vacatur as part of an appellate settlement, but they ordinarily cannot require the court to erase the judgment. Dismissing the appeal usually ends appellate review while leaving the trial-court judgment intact; vacatur requires separate judicial relief and an adequate legal and equitable basis. In federal court, settlement-caused mootness generally does not justify automatic vacatur under U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership. F

Yes, a Rule 37 dismissal or default judgment can be reversed, but the standard is demanding. The court of appeals ordinarily reviews the choice of sanction for abuse of discretion, while examining legal questions independently and factual findings for clear error. Reversal becomes more plausible when the district court did not establish willfulness or bad faith, failed to consider a lesser effective sanction, overlooked evidence that compliance was impossible, imposed relief

Appellate courts generally review the legal availability and governing limits of a constructive trust, disgorgement award, or equitable accounting without deference, while reviewing supported factual findings deferentially and the ultimate shaping of equitable relief for abuse of discretion. The precise standard changes with the procedural posture: a dismissal or summary judgment ordinarily receives de novo review, but a remedy entered after a bench trial presents separate qu

Appellate courts do not revalue a company from scratch. They generally review the governing valuation standard and other legal questions without deference, but they defer substantially to supported factual findings, credibility determinations, and a trial court’s permissible choice among competing valuation evidence. A valuation judgment may still be reversed when the trial court applied the wrong legal measure, selected an unauthorized valuation date or discount, relied on e

Yes. The Fourth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit, or another federal court of appeals may stay its mandate while a party prepares and files a petition for a writ of certiorari, but the stay is discretionary—not automatic. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d), the motion must show that the planned petition will present a substantial question and that good cause justifies delaying the mandate. The motion ordinarily must be filed before the mandate issues. Just as important,

Yes. When a state’s highest court denies discretionary review, a party may still petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the underlying state-court judgment if the case presents a properly preserved federal question, the judgment is sufficiently final, and no adequate and independent state-law ground prevents meaningful relief. The state high court’s one-line denial ordinarily does not decide the federal merits or prevent a certiorari petition. The petition usually asks the

The Fourth or Eleventh Circuit may review both the dismissal of the existing complaint and the district court’s refusal to permit the proposed amendment. The two rulings are related but not identical: dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is generally reviewed de novo, while denial of leave to amend is usually reviewed for abuse of discretion—except that a denial based on futility ordinarily receives de novo review because it rests on a legal conclusion that the amended pleading woul

Yes. A dismissal with prejudice or default judgment imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 can be reversed when the district court lacked a sufficient basis for the sanction, applied the wrong legal standard, failed to consider less drastic measures, relied on clearly erroneous findings, or denied fair notice and an opportunity to respond. Reversal is difficult, however, because appellate courts review the choice of discovery sanction for abuse of discretion and wil

Yes. A final order approving a federal class-action settlement can generally be appealed, and an unnamed class member who timely and specifically objected may appeal without first intervening. But class membership alone does not eliminate every jurisdictional or preservation problem: the objector must be bound or adversely affected, maintain a live stake in the requested relief, comply with the court-approved objection procedure, and file a timely notice of appeal. The appell