• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

image

PLAY BUTTON

image

PLAY BUTTON

image

Progress

1/2

Click to flip

Card Range To Study

through

2 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Rule 50. JMOL

PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO V. CHAMBERLAIN: a court may refuse to submit case to the jury, and instead direct a verdict, where party has not sustained her burden of proof; a party has not sustained its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence if the facts give equal support to each of two inconsistent inferences.
Rule 50. Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling

(a) Judgment as a Matter of Law.

(1) In General. 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:

(A) resolve the issue against the party; and

(B) 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.

(2) Motion. A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.
RJMOL/MNT

PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO V. CHAMBERLAIN:
Rule 59: Did the court abuse its discretion in granting a motion for new trial?: There is a closer degree of scrutiny and supervision by the appellate court when the ground for granting a new trial is on the basis of the verdict being against the weight of the evidence. In order to overturn the granting of a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, there must be a clear showing that the trial judge abused his discretion in so doing.

Justifiications for new trials: (1) Flawed Procedures- improper contact with the jury and (2) Flawed verdicts-jury goes against the greater weight of the evidence.

LIND V. SCHENLEY INDUSTRIES: A trial judge may not substitute his judgment for that of the jury concerning the weight of the evidence. If he does so and grants a new trial, an abuse of discretion occurs.

PETERSON V. WILSON: The district court abused its discretion in granting a motion for a new trial. A court may not impeach a jury verdict from information obtained in a post-verdict, ex parte meeting with the jury to discuss the mental process they used to make their decision. Juror testimony may not be used to impeach a jury verdict.

CAPERTON V. A.T. MASSEY COAL CO.: It is a violation of due process where a judge sits on a case where one of the party’s CEOs made a large contribution to chief justice’s campaign. It is the potential for actual bias the Supreme Court wants to prevent.
(b) Renewing the Motion After Trial; Alternative Motion for a New Trial. If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment--or if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged--the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on the renewed motion, the court may:

(1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict;

(2) order a new trial; or

(3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.

(c) Granting the Renewed Motion; Conditional Ruling on a Motion for a New Trial.

(1) In General. If the court grants a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, it must also conditionally rule on any motion for a new trial by determining whether a new trial should be granted if the judgment is later vacated or reversed. The court must state the grounds for conditionally granting or denying the motion for a new trial.

(2) Effect of a Conditional Ruling. Conditionally granting the motion for a new trial does not affect the judgment's finality; if the judgment is reversed, the new trial must proceed unless the appellate court orders otherwise. If the motion for a new trial is conditionally denied, the appellee may assert error in that denial; if the judgment is reversed, the case must proceed as the appellate court orders.

(d) Time for a Losing Party's New-Trial Motion. Any motion for a new trial under Rule 59 by a party against whom judgment as a matter of law is rendered must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.

(e) Denying the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; Reversal on Appeal. If the court denies the motion for judgment as a matter of law, the prevailing party may, as appellee, assert grounds entitling it to a new trial should the appellate court conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, it may order a new trial, direct the trial court to determine whether a new trial should be granted, or direct the entry of judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50