Asking for a ruling on matters before a trial?
Can I ask a judge to make a ''ruling'' on certain matters which, depending on how the court views these matters, so that I can argue my case better? For example, there is a matter of what I think is a ''personally important constitutionally protected interest'' at issue. If the judge does not agree then I would be arguing in the wrong way. However, I can't imagine this judge disagreeing with me on this -- but unless I can get a ruling how can I know for sure? Here the Respondent is arguing that I do ''not'' have such an interest in the matter. I would like to know ahead of time what the judge things it is. Can I make an ''ex parte'' motion, or any motion at all to get such a ''ruling'' so that I know where I stand with this judge on this issue? And how soon before trial do I have to make such a ruling motion? ---- Additionally, I would have to say unless the judge agrees that my ''personally important constitutionally protected interests'' are at stake, then I would have to say this judge is making a major mistake because he is bucking stare decisis, and I would have to appeal. But that would also make the trial a real bugger, and I might lose! So is there anything I can do if he does make such a ruling mistake?
Re: Asking for a ruling on matters before a trial?
It is also possible to bifurcate a trial, i.e., divide it into two phases. This is often done when resolution of one (or more) relatively easy issues will decide the outcome of the whole case, making it unnecessary to try the difficult issues. I don't know if that would fit your context; mandamus cases are a little different. If there is a case management or other conference coming up, you might raise your issue with the judge at that time, in the other party's presence or with his knowledge of your intent to raise it.
Re: Asking for a ruling on matters before a trial?
It is also possible to bifurcate a trial, i.e., divide it into two phases. This is often done when resolution of one (or more) relatively easy issues will decide the outcome of the whole case, making it unnecessary to try the difficult issues. I don't know if that would fit your context; mandamus cases are a little different. If there is a case management or other conference coming up, you might raise your issue with the judge at that time, in the other party's presence or with his knowledge of your intent to raise it.
Re: Asking for a ruling on matters before a trial?
It is also possible to bifurcate a trial, i.e., divide it into two phases. This is often done when resolution of one (or more) relatively easy issues will decide the outcome of the whole case, making it unnecessary to try the difficult issues. I don't know if that would fit your context; mandamus cases are a little different. If there is a case management or other conference coming up, you might raise your issue with the judge at that time, in the other party's presence or with his knowledge of your intent to raise it.
Re: Asking for a ruling on matters before a trial?
It is also possible to bifurcate a trial, i.e., divide it into two phases. This is often done when resolution of one (or more) relatively easy issues will decide the outcome of the whole case, making it unnecessary to try the difficult issues. I don't know if that would fit your context; mandamus cases are a little different. If there is a case management or other conference coming up, you might raise your issue with the judge at that time, in the other party's presence or with his knowledge of your intent to raise it.
