19. Which of the following actions may the appellate court properly take?

If a case reaches a jury, either party may move for a judgment as a matter of law, also referred to as a directed verdict. This has the effect of taking the case away from the jury and determining the outcome as a matter of law.

The standard for granting a motion for a judgment as a matter of law is set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 50: If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:

(i) resolve the issue against the party; AND

(ii) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.

If a motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied and the jury decides against the party who moved for judgment, the judge may evaluate the legal sufficiency of the evidence on a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. The most important aspect of making this kind of motion is that the movant must make a motion for judgment as a matter of law before the case is submitted to the jury and must «specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.» Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2). Upon denial of the motion for judgment, the judge submits the case to the jury and waits for its verdict.

Following a jury verdict, if a party fails to move for either a renewed judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial based on the insufficiency of the evidence, that party is precluded from raising the question of evidentiary sufficiency on appeal to support either judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. See Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006).

Note, however, that FRCP 59 allows a federal district court to grant a new trial on its own initiative on all or some of the issues involved in a case.

While qualified immunity protects government officials, including police officers, from lawsuits alleging violations of plaintiffs' rights, suits where officials violated a «clearly established» statutory or constitutional right are allowed to proceed. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).

C is correct. The appellate court may properly affirm the judgment for the police officer because the resident failed to renew her motion for judgment as a matter of law, which precludes her from raising the issue of sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.

A is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of the law. In order for this contention to go forward on appeal, the resident must have properly raised the argument for judgment as a matter of law by making motions both before the case was submitted to the jury and after trial. Because the resident failed to make the motion after trial, her appeal may not go forward.

B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with incorrect legal reasoning. Although the appellate court may affirm the judgment for the police officer, it is not because of qualified immunity. Police officers are protected by qualified immunity unless they violated a «clearly established» statutory or constitutional right.

They are not, however, immune «when they act within the scope of their employment,» which would be a much broader standard. As stated above, the reason why the appellate court should affirm the judgment is that the resident failed to renew her motion for judgment as a matter of law, thus forfeiting her right to appeal on this ground.

D is incorrect. Although ordering a new trial is an alternative form of relief that is available to a federal district court when a party has not moved for a new trial, appellate courts do not have the same alternatives available.