Also known as: adverse parties · opposing party · adversary
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A party to an action or transaction whose interests are opposed to those of another party. The designation triggers obligations such as production of prior statements, restrictions on leading questions, and prohibitions on self-dealing without disclosure.
A party to an action or transaction whose interests are opposed to those of another party. The designation triggers obligations such as production of prior statements, restrictions on leading questions, and prohibitions on self-dealing without disclosure.
Atlas Ventures sued Audrey Ashton for unpaid rent on a commercial lease. Ashton discovered that Atlas had failed to repair the roof as required by the same lease, causing inventory damage. Ashton asserted the repair claim as a counterclaim in her answer because it arose from the identical lease transaction that formed the basis of Atlas's complaint.
A person who holds a substantial beneficial interest in a trust that would be diminished by the exercise or nonexercise of a power over the trust. The status prevents the grantor from being treated as owner of the trust for income-tax purposes.
When a transferor retains a power to revoke or appoint only with the consent of a third party, the gift is complete if the third party is an adverse party whose beneficial interest would be diminished by the exercise of the power. Consent of a nonadverse party leaves the gift incomplete.
A person who holds a substantial beneficial interest in a trust that would be diminished by the exercise or nonexercise of a power over the trust. The status prevents the grantor from being treated as owner of the trust for income-tax purposes.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Anika Anand testified on direct examination for Arcadia Retail about inventory shortages. Defense counsel immediately moved for production of Anand's earlier signed incident reports describing the same shortages. The court ordered the reports turned over to Anand's adverse party's attorney for use on cross-examination.
Angela Acosta served broad discovery requests on Artemis Logistics seeking every email sent by any employee over five years. Artemis moved for sanctions, arguing the requests were frivolous and lacked reasonable diligence. The court found the requests violated the duty to avoid frivolous discovery directed at an adverse party.
Adam Anderson retained Aisha Ahmed to market his warehouse. Without disclosure, Ahmed formed an LLC that submitted a below-market purchase offer for the same warehouse. Anderson later learned of the offer and sued Ahmed for breach of the duty not to deal with a principal as an adverse party.
Police placed Alice Atkins in a lineup before any charges were filed. Atkins's attorney argued that the Sixth Amendment required counsel at the lineup. The court rejected the claim because formal adversary judicial proceedings had not yet begun.
Azure Solutions moved for summary judgment on a contract claim, citing only its own affidavits. The opposing party responded that Azure had not shown the absence of a genuine dispute and that the movant could not produce admissible evidence on key terms. The court denied the motion.
A party may use leading questions on direct examination when calling a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party. The rule recognizes that an adverse party is unlikely to cooperate with friendly questioning.
Once a witness other than the defendant has completed direct examination, the opposing party may move for production of any prior statements of that witness in the calling party's possession that relate to the subject matter of the testimony. The court must order production of qualifying statements.
An agent breaches the duty not to deal with the principal as an adverse party when the agent participates in a transaction connected with the agency without the principal's knowledge. The breach occurs even if the offer is never accepted.
…Baker v. Carr , 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962), that insures that "the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution," Flast v. Cohen , 392 U. S. 83, 101 (1968), and Sierra Club v. Morton , 405 U. S. 727, 732 (1972)? And…