50. Which action is the appellate court most likely to take?

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 59, a motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered. The court may grant a new trial because of an error during the trial (usually going to the admissibility of evidence or the propriety of the instructions), because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (limited to cases where the judge finds the verdict seriously erroneous), because of juror misconduct, or because the verdict is excessive or inadequate.

When there has been a jury trial, the judge may order a new trial for any reason for which a new trial has been granted in an action at law in federal court under FRCP 59(a)(1). Most jurisdictions will allow the trial judge to set aside a verdict as «against the weight of the evidence» and order a new trial. The federal standard permits a judge to grant a new trial on motion if the judge is of the opinion that the verdict is against the clear weight of evidence, or is based on false evidence, or will result in a miscarriage of justice, even if there is also substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of a verdict.

When reviewing discretionary rulings by the trial court, such as evidentiary or discovery rulings, appellate courts will use the abuse of discretion standard of review, which is highly deferential. The trial judge's ruling will not be overturned on appeal unless it is plainly wrong or without an appropriate basis.

Under FRCP 50, if the case reaches a jury, either party may move for a judgment as a matter of law, also referred to as a directed verdict, which has the effect of taking the case away from the jury and determining the outcome as a matter of law. The party seeking judgment as a matter of law must make a motion for that judgment before the case is submitted to the jury, specifying the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movement to judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2). Then, the judge submits the case to the jury and waits for the verdict. If the verdict goes against the movant, the movant must renew the motion after the verdict if the judge is to reconsider the motion.

B is correct. The appellate court may affirm the trial court's denial of the seller's post-judgment motion for a new trial if it determines that the jury verdict was not against the clear weight of the evidence.

The standard a federal trial judge uses for determining whether to grant a new trial in jury cases is whether the verdict is against the clear weight of evidence. The denial of a motion for a new trial is a discretionary ruling for purposes of appeal, and the higher court will review the ruling for abuse of discretion. This highly deferential standard will not overturn the ruling unless it is plainly wrong or without an appropriate basis.

Here, the appellate court may certainly uphold the trial court's ruling on the new trial motion if it agrees that it was not against the clear weight of the evidence. Note: the appellate court could affirm the verdict based on any deferential review of the trial court's basis for the ruling under the abuse of discretion standard.

A is incorrect. The appellate court's belief that the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict for the buyer would not justify the court in altering the judgment. As stated above, a discretionary ruling by a trial judge is subject to an abuse of discretion review by the appellate court. It will be affirmed if there is an appropriate basis for it. This is a highly deferential standard of review.

Absent a finding that the trial court abused its discretion and lacked an appropriate basis for its ruling, the appellate court may not alter the judgment, even if it believes that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.

C is incorrect. The appellate court may not enter judgment as a matter of law for the seller because of the seller's failure to make such a motion prior to the case being submitted to the jury and again after the trial ended. A post-trial motion for a new trial is not a substitute for a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, the appellate court cannot unilaterally enter judgment as a matter of law when no motion was previously made.

D is incorrect. An examination of the existing record that shows that «it is unclear which party should have prevailed» is not the standard used for an appellate court to review the trial court's ruling on a motion for a new trial. Such a determination would be an improper basis for overturning the verdict. As explained above, the appellate court must use the abuse of discretion standard, which is highly deferential. It may only overturn the ruling if there is no appropriate basis for it.