In re: Lisse, No. 18-1866 (7th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The Seventh Circuit denied a “Request for Judicial Notice,” publishing an “explanation in the hope of forestalling other, similar applications, which recently have increased in frequency.” Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) permits a court to take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute” because it is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction or can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. The “Request” asked the court to take judicial notice of four documents. Two are orders entered by a Wisconsin state court, which are public records and appropriate subjects of judicial notice. The third is a power of attorney filed in state court. The fact that a document is in a court’s record does not make it an appropriate subject of notice; its provenance may be disputed. The fourth document is a motion filed in the same state case, which is not evidence of an adjudicative fact. The court further noted that the right place to propose judicial notice, in a court of appeals, is in a brief. When evidence is “not subject to reasonable dispute” there is no need to multiply the paperwork by filing “Requests.” If a brief proposes judicial notice, any objection can be presented in a responsive brief.

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 1, 2019.

Download PDF
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 18-1866 & 18-1889 IN THE MATTER OF: STEVEN ROBERT LISSE, Debtor. APPEALS OF: WENDY ALISON NORA ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 16-cv-617-wmc — William M. Conley, Judge. ____________________ SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 28, 2018 ____________________ EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, in chambers. Appellant has submiYed a document styled “Request for Judicial Notice.” In my capacity as motions judge, I deny this and publish a brief explanation in the hope of forestalling other, similar applications, which recently have increased in frequency. Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits a court to take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute” because it: 2 Nos. 18-1866 & 18-1889 (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. The “Request” asks the court to take judicial notice of four documents. Two of them are orders entered by a state court in Wisconsin. They are public records and appropriate subjects of judicial notice. See Menominee Indian Tribe v. Thompson, 161 F.3d 449, 456 (7th Cir. 1998); Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(7). The third is a power of aYorney led in state court. The fact that a document is in a state court’s record does not make it an appropriate subject of notice, however, because its provenance may be disputed. Is it authentic? See Rules 901 to 903. Are the four signatures real or forged? (The signature lines say that all four signers are o cers of Bank of America; none is a party to this proceeding.) Is it the original, or perhaps a duplicate admissible under Rule 1003? Is the document even relevant? See Rule 402. If the power of aYorney had been submiYed in this proceeding it would not be subject to judicial notice. It does not get a privileged status because it was led in a state suit. The fourth document is a lawyer’s motion led in the same state case. That document is not subject to judicial notice because it is not evidence of an adjudicative fact. A lawyer’s appellate brief in the Seventh Circuit is not evidence; neither is a lawyer’s motion in state court. If the document were being o ered just to show that it had been led, that fact might be subject to judicial notice, but the “Request” does not suggest that appellant wants this court to take notice that a particular document was led on a speci c date in some other tribunal. Nos. 18-1866 & 18-1889 3 I said at the outset that I am denying the “Request,” and readers may wonder why I am not granting it with respect to two documents and denying it with respect to two. The reason is that the “Request” is unnecessary. The right place to propose judicial notice, once a case is in a court of appeals, is in a brief. When evidence is “not subject to reasonable dispute”, there’s no need to multiply the paperwork by ling motions or “Requests.” Just refer to the evidence in the brief and explain there why it is relevant and subject to judicial notice. If the assertion is questionable, the opposing litigant can protest. “On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed.” Rule 201(e). That “timely request” and the “opportunity to be heard” both belong in the next brief. So if an appellant proposes judicial notice, the appellee’s objection can be presented in its own brief. If it is an appellee who proposes judicial notice, the appellant’s reply brief provides the opportunity to be heard in opposition. There’s no need to engage in motions practice, require the aYention of additional appellate judges, and defer brie ng. The “Request” therefore is denied as unnecessary with respect to the two judicial orders and is denied as both unnecessary and not meritorious with respect to the other documents.
Primary Holding

Seventh Circuit describes appropriate procedures for obtaining judicial notice in a court of appeals.


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.