Also known as: opponents · adversary · opposing party
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An adverse party in a contested proceeding. The term identifies the party whose interests are directly opposed to those of the speaker or movant.
Oakridge Manufacturing sued Orion Technologies for breach of a supply contract. Orion Technologies answered and asserted a claim for defective goods that arose from the same shipments. Because the claim shares the same transaction as the original suit, Orion Technologies must bring it now or lose it.
Oliver Okeke testified that the defendant never warned him of the hazard. Defense counsel showed him a signed statement he gave months earlier that contradicted that testimony. The court required the witness to explain the inconsistency before any extrinsic proof could be introduced.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Osprey Aviation served twenty-five document requests on Orion Technologies seeking every internal email from the past decade even though the dispute concerned only one contract. The court sanctioned the requesting party for failing to tailor the requests to the actual claims.
Police placed Oriana Oberman in a lineup two days after her arrest but before any complaint or indictment was filed. She had no counsel present. The identification evidence remained admissible because no formal adversary proceeding had yet begun.
Odin Obeng moved to add a new fraud count six months after the answer was filed. The opposing party refused consent. The court granted leave anyway because the amendment would not prejudice the defense and justice favored allowing the claim.
Orchard Farms offered an email written by its former manager admitting the product was defective. The email was introduced against the company in the buyers' suit. Because the statement was made by an agent concerning a matter within the scope of employment, it qualified as nonhearsay.
A party becomes an opponent once it has asserted a claim against the pleader in the same action. The counterclaim must then be stated if it arises from the same transaction or occurrence.
No. The rule requires that the witness first be given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and that an adverse party be given a chance to examine the witness about it.
Making a frivolous discovery request or failing to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a proper request made by the opponent constitutes a violation.
No. The right attaches only after the initiation of formal adversary judicial proceedings, so pre-charge lineups do not trigger the right.
A party may amend without consent only within the time periods set by Rule 15(a)(1). After those periods expire, consent or court leave is required.
A statement is nonhearsay when offered against an opposing party and falls within one of the categories listed in Rule 801(d)(2), such as a statement made by the party or its agent.
…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…