Also known as: proper causes · just cause · good cause
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 deadline. The showing must demonstrate circumstances that warrant relief from the ordinary rule, such as excusable delay or newly arising needs.
Pearl Porter served answers to interrogatories thirty-five days after receipt. She omitted any objection to one question seeking sensitive financial data. When the requesting party moved to compel, Pearl argued the objection should be allowed because the delay stemmed from her attorney's sudden medical emergency. The court excused the untimely objection after finding the circumstances justified relief.
Patricia Patel entered a not-guilty plea in a criminal case. Ten days later she suffered a psychiatric hospitalization that revealed previously undiagnosed delusions. Her counsel filed written notice of an insanity defense two weeks after the hospitalization. The court permitted the late filing because the hospitalization records established justification for the delay.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pavel Petrov sought to introduce a witness statement under the residual exception. He provided written notice of the statement's substance and the declarant's identity only on the morning of trial. The court allowed the evidence after determining that the proponent's recent discovery of the statement supplied justification for the delayed notice.
Priscilla Parks was indicted for assault. Her counsel learned only after the pretrial-motion deadline that Parks had been committed for psychiatric treatment at the time of the offense. The court permitted a late written notice of an insanity defense because the newly obtained medical records supplied justification for the delay.
Phoebe Park, a solo practitioner, was appointed by the court to represent an indigent defendant in a complex felony trial. She sought to decline the appointment because her existing caseload would create an unreasonable financial burden. The court denied the request after finding no justification sufficient to overcome the duty to accept the appointment.
Philip Powell agreed to represent a client in an ongoing divorce proceeding. Midway through discovery the client became unable to pay further fees. Powell moved to withdraw, citing the financial loss. The court denied the motion because withdrawal would leave the client without counsel in a complex case and no justification existed to permit it.
The party must demonstrate specific circumstances, such as excusable delay, newly discovered information, or compelling need, that justify departure from the ordinary procedural rule. Courts evaluate the diligence of the moving party and any prejudice to the opponent.
Supporting sources
Courts may find justification when the reliance was reasonable and the error was beyond the party's control, but sophisticated parties are expected to maintain reliable internal procedures. Brief delays with no prejudice often support relief, while strategic or negligent conduct does not.
Supporting sources
The standard permits a court to excuse untimely notice when the proponent shows that the delay was justified by circumstances such as recent discovery of the evidence or mental-health records. The court may also grant additional preparation time to the opposing party.
Supporting sources
No. The lawyer must continue representation absent justification such as a rules violation or unreasonable burden that the court finds sufficient. Withdrawal that would materially prejudice the client is not permitted on financial grounds alone.
Supporting sources
…found in the Constitution. See, e. g. , 2 Debates 267-268 (A. Hamilton at New York Convention) (noting that there would be just cause for rejecting the Constitution if it would enable the Federal Government to "alter, or abrogate . . . [a State's] civil and criminal institutions [or] penetrate the recesses of domestic…