Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A justification sufficient to permit a court to excuse noncompliance with a procedural requirement or to grant relief from a deadline or restriction. The justification must demonstrate adequate reasons tied to the specific circumstances of the default or request.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Late Interrogatory Objections
Greta Goldstein served interrogatories on Griffin Industries in a contract dispute. Griffin Industries responded three weeks late with only general objections that lacked the required specificity. The court excused the waiver after Griffin Industries demonstrated that its lead counsel had been hospitalized for emergency surgery during the response period.
Delayed Insanity Notice Filing
Grace Gupta was indicted for fraud and entered a not guilty plea. Her counsel discovered new psychiatric records showing a previously undiagnosed condition only after the ten-day window had closed. The court permitted the late written notice of an insanity defense upon a showing that the records had been sealed until the recent hospitalization.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Statutes
Federal Rules
Uniform Acts
Model Codes
Restatements
Hornbooks
Dictionaries
Mid-Trial Residual Hearsay Notice
Gloria Green discovered a key voicemail from a deceased witness two days before trial in her product liability suit against Gulfstream Aviation. She immediately disclosed the recording and the declarant's identity in writing. The court allowed the evidence under the residual exception after finding good cause for the abbreviated notice period.
Untimely Insanity Defense Notice
Gina Griffin was charged with assault. Her new counsel learned of a documented history of severe delusions only after the pretrial motion deadline had passed. The court granted leave to file the insanity notice late after reviewing hospital records that had been unavailable to prior counsel.
Refusal of Court Appointment
Guillermo Guzman was appointed to represent an indigent defendant in a complex fraud prosecution. He sought to decline the appointment because the case would require extensive travel that would disrupt his existing trial calendar. The court denied the request after finding no showing that the burden rose to the level required to establish good cause.
Withdrawal from Divorce Representation
Gideon Graves agreed to represent a client in an ongoing divorce proceeding involving custody and substantial assets. After the client became unable to pay further fees, Graves moved to withdraw. The court denied the motion because withdrawal would leave the client without counsel at a critical stage and no other justification was presented.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What must a party show to obtain relief for missing a filing deadline under good cause standards?+
The party must demonstrate adequate reasons tied to the circumstances that prevented timely compliance. Courts consider factors such as diligence, the reason for the delay, and any prejudice to the opposing party. Mere oversight or strategic delay rarely suffices.
Supporting sources
Does good cause allow a court to excuse lack of pretrial notice for residual hearsay?+
Yes. The court may permit notice during trial if the proponent shows good cause for the earlier omission. The rule requires written pretrial notice unless that requirement is excused.
Supporting sources
Can an attorney avoid a court appointment solely because the representation has become unprofitable?+
No. Withdrawal or refusal requires a showing of good cause beyond mere financial burden. Continued representation is required when withdrawal would materially prejudice the client.
Supporting sources
494 U.S. 872, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1990)Constitutional Law
…[in Sherbert and Thomas ] provided that a person was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits if, ‘without good cause,’ he had quit work or refused available work. The ‘good cause’ standard created a mechanism for individualized exemptions.” Bowen v. Roy, supra , at 708 (opinion of Burger, C. J., joined…