LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Proof of Case – Party Bound by Case Set Up in Pleadings

This principle enforces the fundamental rule that pleadings define the parameters of litigation and parties are bound by their chosen theories of recovery. Pleadings serve multiple essential functions: (1) they provide notice to opponents of the case they must meet; (2) they define the issues for trial; (3) they limit the scope of evidence and argument; and (4) they establish the framework for judgment. A party who pleads a specific cause of action, legal theory, or factual basis cannot, upon failing to prove that case, succeed on an entirely different unpleaded theory. The court’s role is to adjudicate the case as pleaded, not to construct alternative theories that might support the party’s desired outcome. This prohibition prevents: (1) unfair surprise to the opposing party who prepared to defend against the pleaded case; (2) trials beyond the defined issues; (3) judgments on matters not properly before the court; and (4) denial of fair hearing through decisions on unpleaded grounds. If evidence emerges during trial suggesting an alternative basis for relief, the proper course is to seek leave to amend pleadings, not to expect the court to sua sponte adopt the new theory. Courts must resist the temptation to “do justice” by finding for a sympathetic party on grounds not pleaded, as this violates procedural fairness and the adversarial system. The principle applies equally to plaintiffs and defendants—both are bound by their pleaded cases. Where the pleaded case fails on the evidence, the party must fail regardless of whether alternative unpleaded theories might have succeeded. This encourages careful pleading and maintains integrity of the adversarial process.