Litigation ending only when justice is served is an impossible standard. The losing party (whichever side it is in that round) will obviously feel justice has not been served and appeal endlessly. If the two sides agreed on what constituted justice, there wouldn't be a court case.
> If the two sides agreed on what constituted justice, there wouldn't be a court case.
And indeed this is the entire point of the common law: to provide independent decisions, according to rules, in order to settle disputes without violence.
Endless appeals don't always work either -- you actually need a legal reason to appeal beyond "I disliked the decision". You need something like "The judge was wrong on points of law X, Y and Z" and you need the appellate court to agree that there might be something to review.
Most appellate courts look pretty dimly on appealing for the sake of appealing. Plus their time is limited, so they will tend to pick cases with broader legal consequences that will impact more than the disputants.
