LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Formulation of Issues – Court Must Confine Itself to Issues Raised by Parties

This principle defines the proper role of courts in adversarial litigation and limits judicial activism in framing issues for decision. In adversarial systems, parties control the litigation: they define claims and defenses through pleadings, formulate issues for determination, and present evidence and arguments. The court’s role is to adjudicate the issues presented, not to identify or formulate issues the parties have not raised. This division of responsibility serves important purposes: (1) Party autonomy—litigants have the right to define their disputes and choose their theories of recovery or defense; (2) Fair notice—parties prepare to address issues they have raised or that opponents have raised, not issues the court might independently identify; (3) Adversarial testing—issues are properly developed through party advocacy; court-generated issues may lack adequate adversarial development; (4) Judicial restraint—courts should not exceed their adjudicatory function by becoming advocates identifying claims or defenses parties chose not to pursue. The prohibition against formulating issues for parties means courts cannot: raise legal theories parties have not advanced; identify causes of action or defenses not pleaded; decide cases on grounds not argued; or award relief not claimed. Even if the court perceives better arguments or alternative theories that might assist a party, the court must resist formulating these on the party’s behalf. However, the principle permits courts to: identify the true issues from parties’ presentations (even if parties mislabel them); apply correct legal principles to argued issues; and raise jurisdictional questions sua sponte (as jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent). The principle maintains the integrity of adversarial proceedings and prevents courts from becoming partisan by constructing cases for parties who failed to do so themselves