Rule 63.Judges
Group 7: Judgment · Last amended April 28, 2015 · Last verified July 13, 2026
Full Text of Rule 63
Amendment History
Adopted May 5, 1967, effective July 1, 1967; amended, effective April 28, 2015.
Plain-English Summary
A trial doesn't always end the moment the verdict comes in or the findings are signed. Judges still have work left to do: ruling on post-trial motions, settling jury instructions for the record, entering judgment, deciding questions that came up during trial. Rule 63 answers a narrow but practical question — what happens when the judge who heard the case can no longer finish that work because of death, illness, or some other disability?
The rule hands the job to any other judge regularly sitting in or assigned to the same court. That successor doesn't need to relitigate the case or hold a new trial by default; the rule assumes the record — the verdict, the findings, the trial transcript — gives the new judge enough to carry the case to judgment. This keeps a case moving instead of leaving it stranded because one person became unavailable.
But the rule doesn't force a substitute judge to fake familiarity with a case they never heard. If the new judge decides the gap is too wide — that finishing the job in good conscience isn't possible from the paper record alone — Rule 63 gives that judge discretion to grant a new trial instead. The choice belongs to the judge stepping in, not to either party.
Rule 63(a) also points back to Rule 77 for a judge's general powers, since disability questions often overlap with routine questions about which judge may act in a given courtroom or on a given motion.
Frequently Asked Questions
When does Rule 63 come into play?
Only after a verdict has been returned or findings of fact and conclusions of law have been filed. The rule addresses a judge's inability to perform the duties that remain after that point, not a judge falling ill mid-trial before any verdict or findings exist.
Who decides which judge takes over?
The rule doesn't set out a selection procedure. It authorizes any other judge regularly sitting in or assigned to the court where the action was tried to perform the remaining duties.
Does the new judge have to redo the trial?
No. The rule expects the successor judge to complete the outstanding duties based on the existing record. A full new trial is a fallback, not the default.
What if the substitute judge doesn't feel able to finish the case properly?
Rule 63(b) gives that judge discretion to grant a new trial. The rule leaves this judgment call to the judge who has to do the work, rather than dictating an outcome.
Where do I find a judge's general powers mentioned in Rule 63(a)?
Rule 63(a) cross-references Rule 77, which addresses a court's and a judge's powers more broadly.