Judgments to Correct and Judgments to Contest Again: Correction and Supplementary Judgments

Abstract

This volume asks where the boundary lies within which the same court can correct an error in its own judgment. Correction does not substitute for a challenge only if obvious errors in writing or calculation are first separated from the omission of adjudication on part of a claim and both are then distinguished from errors in substantive determination. The path to relief opens where an obvious error in expression is handled by correction and a claim left unadjudicated is handled by continued adjudication, respectively, and closes where what is disputed is not an error in expression but a change in substantive determination and therefore falls outside the statutory scope of correction. The six sections address, in turn, obvious errors in expression, the temptation to change the conclusion, the place of omitted claims, the omission of the ruling on costs, the communication of the correction decision, and the crossroads between correction and challenge. The strongest counterargument is as follows. Requiring a separate challenge when a plainly unjust conclusion could be rectified through a minor correction is wasteful. Revisions to written versions and corrections of research errors are not addressed in this volume.