Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
22. Is the court of appeals likely to consider the citizen's argument?
Each side timely appealed. The citizen did not make a motion for judgment as a matter of law on her illegal entry claim before the case was submitted to the jury, but on appeal, she argued that she should have won the illegal entry claim as a matter of law.
A citizen sued a police officer in federal court, alleging that the officer violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The citizen claimed that the officer illegally entered her home, conducted an unlawful search, and wrongfully seized her property. The case went to trial and the verdict was split. As to the unlawful search and wrongful seizure of property claims, a verdict was returned in favor of the citizen. As to the illegal entry claim, a verdict was returned in favor of the police officer. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
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.
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).
Thus, to preserve an error for appellate review, the appropriate objection or motion must be made at the correct time in the trial court. A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence should be made as a motion for judgment as a matter of law before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must then be made again, as a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, after the verdict. This preserves the issue for appeal.
C is correct. The appellate court should refuse to hear the citizen's argument that the illegal entry claim should have succeeded as a matter of law because the citizen failed to make a prior motion for judgment as a matter of law during the trial before the case was submitted to the jury, as required by FRCP 50(a)(2). Therefore, the citizen may not raise a motion for judgment as a matter of law for the first time on appeal.
A is incorrect. Even if the standard for a motion for judgment as a matter of law were satisfied here in that no reasonable jury could have rendered a verdict for the police officer on the illegal entry claim, the fact that the citizen failed to make a motion for judgment as a matter of law during the trial prior to the jury receiving the case means that the appellate court should not entertain this argument.
B is incorrect. This is a misstatement of the law. It is incorrect that federal appellate courts have no authority to deprive a party of the benefit of a jury verdict in its favor. In appropriate circumstances, federal appellate courts may do just that. However, claims on appeal must be correctly preserved to fall within proper appellate procedures.
D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with incorrect legal reasoning. Although the court should refuse to hear the citizen's argument on the illegal entry claim, it is not because federal statutory law precludes the appellate court's jurisdiction over post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law. No such statutory law exists. Rather, the court should decline to consider the citizen's argument for the reasons stated above.