Suppose that the trial in Lavender had occurred in federal court. Court can order a new trial on its own, sua sponte. Suppose that the trial in Lavender had occurred in federal court.Ĭould the trial court have granted a new trial on its own, without a motion by a party? Rule 59(d) But at some point, the court should allow the verdict to stand. Should the trial court grant another new trial? Technically the court could. No Suppose that following a second trial in Dadurian, the jury finds for the plaintiff. Upon a proper motion, would it have been reversible error for the trial court to grant a new trial? Was the verdict for the plaintiff against the clear weight of the evidence? (DADURIAN) Why may a judge deny a 50(b) motion but grant a 59 motion? 50(b) evidence standard is in a light most favorable to nonmoving partyĥ9 standard allows judges to weigh all the evidence Suppose that the trial in Lavender had occurred in federal court. What standard must the judge weigh the evidence with? The judge is permitted to weigh ALL the evidence and is NOT required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Just want a general verdict that says yes you won. General & Special Verdict: Why would winning party only want a general verdict given? They don't want the jury focusing too hard on all the issues and evidence. What are you telling the court when you file a Rule 59 motion? Something went wrong with the trial process OR somehow the verdict is unsupportable What's the standard of reasoning for Rule 59? The verdict was so far "against the clear weight of the evidence", so it provides grounds for a new trial. The judge is not directly substituting their view of the evidence. 59(a)(1)(A) - Gives courts the authority to grant new trials "for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal courts" P's theory is more likely than D's theory) What happens when there are only two theories, and there is no way for the jury to decide one over the other? The court will move in favor of D because P had the burden of proof Rule 59 provides. The jury should not be weighing the two theories against one another (ex. Can a jury speculate? Yes, speculation is part of the jury's function to draw reasonable inferences Is it proper for a jury to decide which of the two theories presented are more reasonable? No, Plaintiff has the burden to show that their theory is more likely than not What is the standard for granting JMOL? The same as Summary Judgment. Rule 50(b): Motion must be filed within 28 days after the verdict. Defendant doesn't get around to filling a written motion for JMOL until 30 days after entry of judgment. After verdict for plaintiff, the court enters judgment, and the defendant immediately makes an oral motion for JMOL. Is judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) proper in the following situation?ĭefendant moves for JMOL at the close of all evidence. If the judge moves on first JMOL, then if this is on appeal, there is no verdict and everyone must start allll over. If this goes on appeal, at least the case will now have a verdict. Why would a judge not rule on a 50(a) and then later, without a motion, grant a 50(b)? Even though the judge thinks it should rule for JMOL before jury, but they think the jury should have a chance to decide it correctly. There must be a motion by a party filed within 28 days after judgment. No, 50(b), Court may not sua sponte renew the motion. After the jury returns a verdict for the plaintiff, the court, without motion from the defendant, grants JMOL. Rule 50(b) Is judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) proper in the following situation?ĭefendant moves for JMOL at the close of all the evidence. "If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under 50(a)," Following a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the judge on her own concludes that there was insufficient evidence. Since 50(a) must be filed in order for there to be a 50(b), then it is not unconstitutional Is judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) proper in the following situation?īoth sides present their evidence and neither moves for JMOL. What is the fiction we are telling ourself when we allow court's to overturn a jury's verdict? 50(b) is just a delayed 50(a) decision.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |