An answer (derived from and, against, and the same root as swear) was originally a solemn assertion in opposition to some one or something, and thus generally any counter-statement or defence, a reply to a question or objection, or a correct solution of a problem. In the common law, an answer is the first pleading by a defendant, usually filed and served upon the plaintiff within a certain strict time limit after a civil complaint or criminal information or indictment has been served upon the defendant. It may have been preceded by an optional "pre-answer" motion to dismiss or demurrer; if such a motion is unsuccessful, the defendant must file an answer to the complaint or risk an adverse default judgment.

Reply

The reply is a response by plaintiff to defendant's answer. A reply occurs only when defendant has asserted a counterclaim or the court has ordered a reply.  It is important to keep in mind that "plaintiff" in this context may also refer to an impleaded party. So, if a defendant impleads a party, this new party is the third-party defendant and the original defendant is the third-party plaintiff. The third-party plaintiff must file a complaint on the third-party defendant, who then must answer. The court may order a reply to this third-party defendant's answer.

Counterclaim

A Counterclaim is made by the defendant to a civil proceeding, in a main actions against the plaintiff or against the plaintiff and other persons. This claim may be an attempt to offset or reduce the amount/implications of the plaintiff's original claim against the defendant, or it may be a different claim.  For example, Bank sues customer for an unpaid debt, customer counterclaims (sues back) against bank for fraud in procuring the debt. The court will sort out the different claims in one lawsuit (unless the claims are severed).

Counterclaims are either compulsory or permissive. If the counterclaim is permissive, it may be brought, but no rights are waived if it is not. If the counterclaim is mandatory, it must be brought in the current action or it is waived. Under the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a counterclaim is compulsory if it involves only the parties currently part of the suit, and is from the same transaction that the original suit is based on.

Cross-Claim

A cross-claim is a claim brought against a co-party in the same side of a lawsuit. That is, a plaintiff brings a claim against another plaintiff, or a defendant brings a claim against another defendant.  In the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this is codified in Rule 13(g). In the federal rules, a cross-claim is proper if it relates to a matter of the original jurisdiction. Proper jurisdiction is determined by a finding of whether the suit that is being initiated arises from the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the suit.

The policy for allowing cross-claims is that they promote efficiency and consistency. Furthermore, the same underlying facts will be litigated on the main claim as well as on the cross-claim preserving efficiency in the judicial system by resolving multiple claims that might arise between the parties as opposed to courts trying each claim invidivually and re-litigating the same facts. Furthermore, this will prevent inconsistent verdicts that might harm the public perception of the judicial process. Finally, because cross-claims are not mandatory, they allow the moving party the opportunity to sue later. The plaintiff is the master of his complaint, and this also holds true in cross-claims.

Joinder

Joinder is a legal term which refers to the inclusion of additional counts or additional defendants on an indictment. In English law, charges for any offence may be joined in the same indictment if those charges are founded on the same facts, or form or are a part of a series of offences of the same or a similar nature. A number of defendants may be joined in the same indictment even if no single count applies to all of them, provided that the counts are sufficiently linked. The judge retains the option to order separate trials.

Joinder falls under two categories: joinder of claims, and joinder of parties. Joinder of claims is addressed in U.S. law by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure No. 18(a). That Rule allows claimants to consolidate all claims that they have against an individual who is already a party to the case. Claimants may bring new claims even if these new claims are not related to the claims already stated. Note that joinder of claims is never compulsory (i.e., joinder is always permissive), and that joinder of claims requires that the court's subject matter jurisdiction requirements regarding the new claims be met for each new claim.

Joinder of parties also falls into two categories: permissive joinder and compulsory joinder. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure No. 20 addresses permissive joinder. Permissive joinder allows multiple plaintiffs to join in an action if each of their claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence, and if there is a common question of law or fact relating to all plaintiffs' claims. Permissive joinder is also appropriate to join multiple defendants, as long as the same considerations as for joining multiple plaintiffs are met. Also, the court must have personal jurisdiction over every defendant joined in the action, as the court has no authority under Rule 20 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Rules 18 and 20 have different effects depending on when they are invoked. If part of an original pleading, they will form part of the case. However, if the time for modifying the pleadings has passed, the pleading must be amended through application of the amending rule, 15a. There is a discretionary period during which original pleadings may be amended, that is as a matter of course at the beginning of trial, and later with the discretion of the opposing party or judge. Rules 18 and 20 delineate who can be joined. However, if not pleaded originally, parties can be brought in only by way of amendment. Rule 15 describes the process for amending a claim.

Under the concept of compulsory joinder, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 mandates that some parties be joined. Parties that must be joined are those necessary and indispensable to the litigation. Note, though, that while "necessary" parties must be joined if that joinder is possible, the litigation will continue without them if joinder is impossible. If "indispensable" parties cannot be joined, by contrast, the litigation cannot go forward.

Impleader

Impleader is a procedural device before trial in which one party joins a third party into a lawsuit because that third party is liable to an original defendant: for example, in a case where a driver rear-ended another car due to faulty brakes, and is sued by the accident victim, the driver may decide to implead the repair shop where the brakes were worked on. The theory is that two cases may be decided together and justice may be done more efficiently than having two suits in a series.  Common bases of contingent or derivative liability by which third parties may be impleaded include indemnity, subrogation, contribution, and warranty.

Interpleader

Interpleader is a form of action originally developed under equity jurisprudence. It allows a plaintiff to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute. An interpleader action originates when the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another, but doesn't know to whom the property should be transferred. It is often used to resolve disputes arising under insurance contracts.  In an interpleader action, the party initiating the litigation, normally the plaintiff, is termed the stakeholder. The money or other property in controversy is called the res. All defendants having a possible interest in the subject matter of the case are called claimants.

For example, suppose a person dies with a life insurance policy. However, the insurance company knows there will be a dispute over who should receive the proceeds. The insurance company can file an interpleader action. The insurance company is the stakeholder, the claimants are the persons who might be beneficiaries under the policy, and the cash value of the policy benefit is the res. Under the proceeding as originally developed, the stakeholder would deposit the res with the court, and then the defendants would have their claims adjudicated by the court. Statutory modifications to the procedure (varying, of course, by jurisdiction) sometimes allow the stakeholder to retain the res pending final disposition of the case.

Motions

A legal motion is a procedural device in law to bring a limited, contested matter before a court for decision. A motion may be thought of as a request to the judge (or judges) to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is regulated by court rules which vary from place to place. The party requesting the motion is called the movant.

Motion to Dismiss

A "motion to dismiss" asks the court to decide that a claim, even if true as stated, is not one for which the law offers a legal remedy. For example, a claim that the defendant failed to greet another on the street would be dismissed for failure to state a valid claim.[citation needed] A claim that has been presented after the statute of limitations has expired is also subject to dismissal. If granted, the claim is dismissed without any evidence being presented by the other side. A motion to dismiss has taken the place of the common law demurrer in most modern civil practice.

Under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a party may raise by motion any defense, objection, or request that the court can determine without a trial of the general issue. Before the trial starts, the motions can be based on defects in instituting the prosecution, defects in the indictment or information (which can be challenged at any stage but are generally raised before a trial begins). Pleadings in a federal criminal trial are pleadings in a criminal proceeding are the indictment, the information, and the pleas of not guilty, guilty, and nolo contendere. A motion under Rule 14 can address the statement of the charges (or individual specifications, see below) or the defendants. In these instances, the motion to dismiss is characterized as a "motion to sever charges or defendants."

Discovery Motions

Discovery motions relate to the necessary exchange of information between the parties. In the Anglo-American system of law (common law), these motions capture an irreducible tension in the legal system between the right or of discovery and a duty to disclose information to another.

There are numerous practical differences between the discovery expectations and practices in civil and criminal proceedings. The local rules of many courts clarify expectations with respect to civil discovery, in part because these are often poorly understood or are abused as part of a trial strategy. As a result, civil discovery rules pertain to discretionary discovery practices and much of the argument in this respect centers on the proper definition of the scope of the parties requests. Because criminal prosecutions generally implicate a well-defined constitutional guarantee, criminal discovery is much more focused on automatic disclosure principles, which if found to be violated, will trigger the dismissal of the charges.

Motion for Summary Judgment

A "motion for summary judgment" asks the court to decide that the available evidence, even if taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, supports a ruling in favor of the moving party. This motion is usually only made when sufficient time for discovering all evidence has expired. For summary judgment to be granted in most jurisdictions, a two-part standard must be satisfied: (i) no genuine issue of material fact can be in dispute between the parties, and (ii) the moving party must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For example, a claim that a doctor performed malpractice by prescribing a drug would be entitled to recover summary judgment if the plaintiff failed to obtain expert testimony indicating that the drug was improperly prescribed. Motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment are types of dispositive motions.

Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is the rule which explains the mechanics of a summary judgment motion. As explained in the notes to this rule, summary judgment procedure is a method for promptly disposing of actions in which there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Prior to its introduction in the US in 1934, it was used in England for more than 50 years.

Motion in Limine

A "motion in limine" asks the court to decide that certain evidence may or may not be presented to the jury at the trial. A motion in limine generally addresses issues which would be prejudicial for the jury to hear in open court, even if the other side makes a timely objection which is sustained, and the judge instructs the jury to disregard the evidence. For example, the defendant may ask the court to rule that evidence of a prior conviction that occurred a long time ago should not be allowed into evidence at the trial because it would be more prejudicial than probative. If the motion is granted, then evidence regarding the conviction could not be mentioned in front of the jury, without first approaching the judge outside of the hearing of the jury and obtaining permission. The violation of a motion in limine can result in the court declaring a mistrial.

Motion for a Directed Verdict

A "motion for a directed verdict" asks the court to rule that the plaintiff or prosecutor has not proven the case, and there is no need for the defense to attempt to present evidence. This motion is made after the plaintiff has rested its case, and prior to the defense presenting any evidence. If granted, the court would dismiss the case.

Motion for Judgment N.O.V.

A "motion for judgment n.o.v." (non obstante veredicto, or notwithstanding the verdict) asks the court to reverse the jury's verdict on the grounds that the jury could not reasonably have reached such a verdict. This motion is made after the jury's verdict. If granted, the court enters a new verdict. Typically, this motion can be used in a criminal case only to reverse a guilty verdict; not guilty verdicts are immune to reversal by the court.

Under Rule 50, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the motion for directed verdict and JNOV have been replaced by the motion for judgment as a matter of law, which can be made at the close of the opposing party's evidence and "renewed" after return of the verdict (or after the dismissal of a hung jury).

Under Rule 29, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure the "motion for a judgment of acquittal", or Rule 917, Rules for Courts-Martial the "motion for a finding of not guilty", if the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient to support a rational finding of guilty, there is no reason to submit the issue to a jury.

Motion for New Trial

A motion for new trial asks to overturn or set aside a court's decision or jury verdict. Such a motion is proposed by a party who is dissatisfied with the end result of a case. This motion must be based on some vital error in the court's handling of the trial, such as the admission or exclusion of key evidence, or an incorrect instruction to the jury. Generally the motion is filed within a short time after the trial (7-30 days) and is decided prior to the lodging of an appeal. In some jurisdictions, a motion for new trial which is not ruled upon by a set period of time automatically is deemed to be denied.

Motion to Set Aside Judgment

A "motion to set aside judgment" asks to vacate or nullify a judgment and/or verdict. Motions may be made at any time after entry of judgment, and in some circumstances years after the case has been closed by the courts. Generally the grounds for the motion cannot be ones which were previously considered when deciding a motion for new trial or on an appeal of the judgment.

Motion to Compel

A "motion to compel" asks the court to order either the opposing party or a third party to take some action. This sort of motion most commonly deals with discovery disputes, when a party who has propounded discovery to either the opposing party or a third party believes that the discovery responses are insufficient. The motion to compel is used to ask the court to order the non-complying party to produce the documentation or information requested, and/or to sanction the non-complying party for their failure to comply with the discovery requests.