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.
53. Which of the following actions may the court of appeals properly take?
After trial, the boating company timely renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law and alternatively moved for a new trial. The district court granted the renewed motion and conditionally granted a new trial, the latter ruling to take effect only if the court of appeals reversed the grant of judgment as a matter of law. The fisherman appealed both of these rulings.
A fisherman brought an action in federal court seeking to recover payments made towards a defective boat he purchased from a boating company. At the close of the fisherman's case in chief, the boating company made a motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court denied the boating company's motion. The jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of the fisherman.
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
Under FRCP 50(a)(1), a party may make a motion for JMOL when the other party has been fully heard on an issue. In practice, this means that the defendant may move for a JMOL or directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case, and either party may move for a directed verdict after both sides have rested.
FRCP 50 also states the standard for granting a JMOL: 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.
FRCP 50 permits a judge to reserve judgment on a JMOL motion and submit the case to the jury. If the jury decides against the party who moved for judgment as a matter of law, the judge may then evaluate the legal sufficiency of the evidence on a renewed JMOL (previously known as a judgment notwithstanding the verdict). The most important aspect of making this kind of motion is that the movant must make the motion for JMOL before the case is submitted to the jury.
In federal practice, a motion for judgment as a matter of law may be combined with one for a new trial under FRCP 50. If the judge grants the JMOL motion, the judge must also rule conditionally on the new trial motion. Later, if the JMOL is reversed on appeal, the new trial will then occur automatically unless the appeals court specifies otherwise.
A JMOL or a renewed JMOL motion may be granted if a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient basis to find for the nonmoving party. In contrast, a new trial may be granted if the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, to correct an error, or because the verdict was excessive or inadequate.
Federal courts adhere to the final judgment rule, which states that an appeal is allowed only after the trial court has made a final determination on all issues involved in the lawsuit. This means that even if a particular issue in the case has been finally determined, the losing party on that issue cannot generally take an immediate appeal.
Exam Tip: The call of the question asks which action the appellate court MAY properly take. This means that the incorrect answers will all be choices that describe actions the appellate court may NOT take.
B is correct. A JMOL is a motion that may be made by any party at any time before submission of the case to the jury, and the moving party must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts on which the party is entitled to judgment. The motion may be granted only after the nonmoving party has been fully heard on the matter and the court must find that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient basis to find for the nonmoving party on that issue.
A motion for a new trial, however, is granted because of an error during the trial, because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence or because the verdict is excessive or inadequate.
Here, the appellate court may decide that the party who lost at trial (in this case, the company) and moved for JMOL was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, as the trial court found, and is entitled to a new trial, thus reversing in part and affirming in part the trial court's rulings.
A is incorrect. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the fisherman and, as such, there was a final judgment in this case. Pursuant to FRCP 50(c)(2), a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and a conditional grant of a new trial does not undermine the finality of that judgment.
C is incorrect. This choice indicates that the company's motion for JMOL was untimely, which is incorrect because the company made the motion following the close of the fisherman's case in chief, which was timely under FRCP 50.
D is incorrect. If the court of appeals were to affirm the motion for judgment as a matter of law, there would be no reason to order a new trial. If the appellate court were to reverse the JMOL motion, then the new trial order would be appropriate to resolve the issues. Affirming the JMOL would render a new trial unnecessary.