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.
28. How is the court likely to rule on the motions?
After the farmer fully presented his case, the supermarket's attorney submitted a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the court denied. After the jury returned a verdict for the supermarket in the amount of $1,000, each party's lawyer submitted a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and an alternative motion for a new trial.
A supermarket from State A filed a diversity action in State A federal court against a farmer from State B. The supermarket sought $175,000 in damages arising from a contract dispute. Each side presented their case, with conflicting evidence as to whether there was a valid contract.
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
(i) the moving party must establish that there was no substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict; AND
(ii) that the motion was first made after the opponent has been fully heard but before the case has been given to the jury.
If a court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the movant who made the motion may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.
Here, the judge must deny the farmer's motion because the farmer did not make a pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law. That there was «conflicting evidence» does not mean the court may not grant the supermarket's motion. The supermarket's motion might be granted if the court determines there was not a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find as it did.
A is incorrect. The judge does not need to reject both the supermarket's and the farmer's motions for judgment as a matter of law. Instead, the supermarket's motion could be granted if the court determines there was not a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find as it did.
C is incorrect. The judge must deny the farmer's motion because the farmer did not make a pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law. The judge's denial of the supermarket's earlier motion does not preclude the court from granting the supermarket's post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law.
D is incorrect. There are two grounds to support a motion for a new trial: (i) jury misconduct; and (ii) insufficiency of the evidence. Here, it is possible that both parties could identify a factor that justifies a new trial. For instance, a jury misunderstanding or a verdict that is against the great weight of the evidence. Further, the farmer's failure to make a pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law does not preclude her from making a motion for new trial.