Definition
Reopening a case is a court's discretionary act of permitting a matter that has been submitted, decided, or closed to be revisited, typically by allowing the introduction of new evidence or new arguments not previously considered. The effect is to restore the case, in whole or in part, to active litigation.
The term operates in at least two distinct procedural contexts:
1. Trial and hearing proceedings. A court may reopen a case before final judgment to permit a party to introduce additional evidence, correct omissions, or cure defects in the record. This is most common after a party has rested but before the court renders a verdict or decision. The decision lies in the trial court's sound discretion and is generally disfavored absent good cause.
2. Post-judgment and administrative proceedings. After a final judgment or final administrative order has been entered, reopening refers to the procedural step of setting aside or reconsidering that judgment so the case may be reheard or retried. In administrative law — most prominently in immigration proceedings — reopening is a formally defined procedure with specific filing deadlines, grounds, and standards.
Common Confusion
Reopening and rehearing are related but distinct. To reopen a case is to permit new evidence and, in practice, to try the matter anew on an expanded record. To rehear a case is to reconsider it on the same proofs and allegations already before the court. Bouvier's draws this line explicitly. The practical difference matters in research: a motion to reopen invites factual expansion; a motion for rehearing or reconsideration invites legal reargument on the existing record.
Reopening should also be distinguished from a new trial and from an appeal. A new trial is a formal reset of the entire proceeding, typically ordered by the trial court or on remand. An appeal challenges the legal or factual conclusions of the tribunal below; it does not, by itself, reopen the evidentiary record. Reopening occupies a narrower procedural space — it intervenes in a proceeding that is not yet finally concluded, or activates a specific administrative mechanism for revisiting a closed order.
Why It Matters in Research
Context determines everything. The phrase "reopening a case" appears across civil litigation, criminal proceedings, equity practice, and administrative law, and the standards differ substantially in each. A researcher who locates doctrine from one context and applies it to another will find the sources in conflict.
In equity practice, as Bouvier reflects, courts historically exercised broad inherent discretion to reopen proceedings to correct mistakes — particularly in testimony — before final decree. That discretion was real but bounded by the requirement that applications be grounded on material cause.
In modern federal civil practice, the closer analogs are motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 (motion to alter or amend judgment, or for new trial) and Rule 60(b) (relief from final judgment). Neither uses the phrase "reopening" as a term of art, but both accomplish what Bouvier would have called reopening in the post-judgment sense. Researchers working with 19th or early 20th century sources should be alert to the fact that Bouvier's framing predates this codified structure.
In immigration law, reopening is a formal, highly regulated procedure. The Board of Immigration Appeals and immigration judges operate under specific regulations governing motions to reopen, including numerical limits, filing deadlines, and exceptions for changed country conditions or ineffective assistance of counsel. The standards bear little resemblance to the equity tradition Bouvier describes. Researchers working on immigration matters should treat administrative reopening doctrine as its own body of law and should not import general civil procedure assumptions.
In criminal proceedings, the concept of reopening intersects with double jeopardy constraints (for the prosecution), post-conviction relief statutes, and habeas corpus doctrine. The government's ability to reopen a criminal case after acquittal is constitutionally cabined in ways that have no civil parallel.
Historical sources, including Bouvier, address reopening primarily through the lens of equity and chancery practice. They are useful for understanding the doctrinal origins and the core distinction between reopening and rehearing, but they do not map onto modern procedural codes without translation.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary provides the clearest historical foundation. Bouvier distinguishes reopening from rehearing with precision: reopening permits new evidence and amounts to a practical retrial; rehearing proceeds on the existing record. Both applications, Bouvier notes, are disfavored and must be grounded on material cause when granted. This framing reflects chancery practice, where the court's equitable discretion was the operative mechanism rather than a procedural rule.
Bouvier's entry is notably brief on the standards governing when reopening will be granted, which reflects the inherently discretionary and case-specific nature of the determination in equity practice. What the historical sources do not address — and where researchers must look elsewhere — is the modern administrative law framework, particularly the heavily codified immigration reopening regime, which emerged through 20th-century regulatory development and bears its own distinct jurisprudence.
Jurisdictional Note
Standards for reopening vary significantly between federal and state courts and between judicial and administrative tribunals. Immigration proceedings are governed by federal regulation and BIA precedent, which control over general civil procedure analogs. State court rules governing motions to reopen or reconsider after judgment differ across jurisdictions in timing, grounds, and available relief. Researchers should identify the specific tribunal and procedural posture before selecting applicable authority.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia — The Law of the Case Doctrine (civpro_100): addresses how prior rulings bind subsequent proceedings, relevant to understanding the limits on reopening already-decided issues.
The Law Mind Immigration Law Encyclopedia — Motions to Reopen and Reconsider: Deadlines, Changed Country Conditions Exception, and Sua Sponte Authority (immigration_100): the primary reference for administrative reopening in immigration proceedings, where the doctrine is most fully developed as a distinct body of law.