9.2 Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) are crucial tools in civil trials. They allow parties to challenge the legal sufficiency of evidence, potentially ending cases before jury deliberation or overturning verdicts afterward.

JMOLs serve as safeguards against unsupported jury decisions, maintaining the integrity of the legal process. Understanding their purpose, timing, and standards is essential for effectively navigating post-trial motions and preserving rights for potential appeals.

Purpose and Grounds for JMOL

Definition and Legal Basis

Top images from around the web for Definition and Legal Basis

• 

  LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Jurisdiction, Types of Law, and the Selection of Judges | Texas Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U S Courts: Due Process and Equality Under the Law | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Jurisdiction, Types of Law, and the Selection of Judges | Texas Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Definition and Legal Basis

• 

  LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Jurisdiction, Types of Law, and the Selection of Judges | Texas Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U S Courts: Due Process and Equality Under the Law | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Jurisdiction, Types of Law, and the Selection of Judges | Texas Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) challenges the legal sufficiency of evidence presented at trial
• Governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 safeguards against jury verdicts unsupported by substantial evidence
• Allows court to determine legally sufficient evidentiary basis for reasonable jury to find for non-moving party
• Filed when absence of legally sufficient evidentiary basis on necessary element of opposing party's case
• Can be made by either party typically filed by defendants seeking to avoid adverse jury verdict
• Timing critical must be made before case submitted to jury to preserve right for renewed motion after verdict

Purpose and Function

• Serves as procedural device to challenge evidence presented at trial
• Enables court to assess legal sufficiency of evidence before or after jury deliberation
• Protects against unsupported jury verdicts maintaining integrity of legal process
• Provides mechanism for parties to address perceived weaknesses in opposing case
• Allows judges to intervene when evidence presented fails to meet legal standards
• Streamlines judicial process by potentially resolving cases without full jury deliberation (pre-verdict JMOL)

Pre-Verdict vs Post-Verdict JMOL

Pre-Verdict JMOL

• Formerly known as motions for directed verdict made after opposing party fully heard on issue during jury trial
• Filed before case submitted to jury requires specification of law and facts entitling moving party to judgment
• Allows court to evaluate sufficiency of evidence before jury deliberation
• Can result in immediate judgment for moving party if granted
• Serves as prerequisite for filing post-verdict JMOL on same grounds
• Timing crucial must be made before jury begins deliberations (typically at close of evidence)

Post-Verdict JMOL

• Previously called motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) filed after jury returns verdict
• Must be filed within 28 days of judgment entry or jury discharge for unresolved jury issues
• Requires prior filing of pre-verdict JMOL on same grounds to preserve right
• Can include alternative or joint request for new trial under Rule 59
• Allows court to overturn jury verdict if legally insufficient evidence supports it
• Provides mechanism for correcting errors in jury decision-making process

Standards for JMOL Consideration

Legal Standard and Evaluation

• Courts apply stringent standard viewing all evidence in light most favorable to non-moving party
• Determine whether reasonable jury could find for non-moving party based on presented evidence
• Court cannot weigh evidence assess witness credibility or substitute its judgment for jury's
• Requires evaluation of entire trial record to determine sufficiency of evidence
• Considers both direct and circumstantial evidence in favor of non-moving party
• Applies relevant legal standards to determine if evidence meets threshold for jury consideration

Potential Outcomes and Consequences

• Pre-verdict JMOL grant court may enter judgment against non-moving party or defer until close of evidence
• Post-verdict JMOL grant requires conditional ruling on any new trial motion
• Potential outcomes include granting motion and entering judgment for moving party
• Denying motion allows jury verdict to stand preserving original decision
• Ordering new trial if motion granted in part addresses specific issues while preserving others
• Court's ruling subject to appellate review de novo for legal questions substantial evidence for factual determinations
• Impacts case resolution potentially ending litigation (granted JMOL) or affirming jury decision (denied JMOL)