Motions - Motions for judgments as a matter of law (directed...

Learning Outcomes

This article explains motions for judgment as a matter of law (JML), including:

• The purpose and timing of JML motions in federal civil jury trials
• How JML relates to older terms like directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)
• The legal standard applied to JML motions and how it compares with summary judgment and motions for new trial
• The requirement to move under Rule 50(a) before the case is submitted to the jury, and how that preserves the right to renew after verdict
• The scope, timing, and content of renewed JML motions under Rule 50(b)
• The consequences of failing to make, renew, or properly frame a JML motion, including limits on appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency
• The interaction between JML and Rule 59 motions for new trial, including conditional rulings and remittitur
• The relationship between JML and bench‑trial judgments on partial findings under Rule 52(c)
• How appellate courts review JML and new‑trial rulings, including standards of review and harmless‑error principles
• How to apply these rules to MBE‑style fact patterns and avoid common traps about timing, standards, and preservation of error

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand motions for judgment as a matter of law in the context of federal civil jury trials, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• The definition and function of a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50
• When and how a JML (directed verdict) motion may be made during trial
• The legal standard a court applies to JML motions, including what counts as a “legally sufficient evidentiary basis”
• The requirements, scope, and timing for a renewed JML motion (JNOV) after a jury verdict
• The “provisional denial” rule and why an earlier JML motion is a prerequisite to renewal after verdict
• The consequences of failing to move (or renew) JML, including limits on appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency
• The distinction between JML/JNOV and motions for new trial, and how courts can rule on them together
• The relationship between JML and summary judgment, and between JML and bench‑trial judgments on partial findings

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. At what stage in a federal jury trial may a party first move for judgment as a matter of law?
   1. After the jury returns a verdict
   2. At any time before the case is submitted to the jury
   3. Only after the close of all evidence
   4. Only after the court denies a motion for summary judgment
2. Which standard does the court apply when deciding a motion for judgment as a matter of law?
   1. Whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence
   2. Whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact
   3. Whether a reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the non‑moving party
   4. Whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the pleadings
3. What is required for a party to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law after a jury verdict?
   1. The party must have made a JML motion before the case was submitted to the jury
   2. The party must have moved for summary judgment before trial
   3. The party must have objected to the jury instructions
   4. The party must have filed a motion for new trial
4. In ruling on a Rule 50(a) motion, the judge may:
   1. Weigh the credibility of witnesses
   2. Draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the moving party
   3. Grant judgment even if a reasonable jury could find for either party
   4. Assume the non‑moving party’s evidence is true and draw reasonable inferences in that party’s favor
5. A defendant loses at trial, never having made a Rule 50(a) motion. Within 28 days she files a post‑trial motion arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient. Which is the best characterization?
   1. The court may treat the motion as a timely renewed JML motion
   2. The court must treat the motion as a Rule 60(b) motion
   3. The court must deny the motion because no Rule 50(a) motion was made
   4. The court must grant the motion if it believes the verdict was against the weight of the evidence

Introduction

In federal civil jury trials, a party may seek a ruling from the judge that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on a particular issue. This is done by moving for judgment as a matter of law (JML) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, previously known as a directed verdict (before the verdict) or judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) (after the verdict). JML motions are a key tool for resolving cases where the trial evidence is legally insufficient to support a jury verdict.

Key Term: Judgment as a Matter of Law (JML)
A Rule 50 motion asking the court to rule, based on the trial record, that no reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the opposing party on a claim or defense.

JML matters for the MBE because it sits at the crossroads of several highly tested concepts:

• The division of responsibility between judge and jury
• The proper standard for assessing sufficiency of the evidence
• The timing and preservation of issues for appeal
• The interaction between pretrial, trial, and post‑trial motions

Because JML is tested frequently on the MBE, you must know when it can be made, the exact standard courts apply, how to renew the motion after a verdict, and how JML differs from related devices such as summary judgment and motions for new trial.

Older terminology: directed verdict and JNOV

Historically, courts spoke in terms of directed verdict (before the case went to the jury) and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) (after the jury returned a verdict). Rule 50 replaced these with a single concept—judgment as a matter of law—made either before or after the verdict.

Key Term: Directed Verdict
The former term for a motion for judgment as a matter of law made before the case is submitted to the jury.

Key Term: Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)
The former term for a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law made after the jury returns a verdict.

On the MBE, the examiners may still use the older labels “directed verdict” or “JNOV.” Treat “directed verdict” as a Rule 50(a) JML motion made before the jury deliberates, and “JNOV” as a Rule 50(b) renewed JML motion made after the verdict.

Key Term: Rule 50(a) Motion
A pre‑verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law, made before the case is submitted to the jury, after the non‑moving party has been fully heard on the relevant issue.

Key Term: Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
A post‑verdict Rule 50(b) motion asking the court to set aside the jury’s verdict and enter judgment for the movant on an issue previously raised in a Rule 50(a) motion.

Where JML Fits in the Civil‑Procedure Framework

It helps to place JML among the other dispositive motions you study for the MBE:

• Rule 12(b)(6): Attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint on the pleadings.
• Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: Similar to 12(b)(6), but made after the pleadings are closed, still based solely on the pleadings.

Key Term: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
A Rule 12(c) motion asking the court to resolve the case on the basis of the pleadings alone, assuming all well‑pleaded facts in the non‑movant’s pleadings are true.

• Rule 56 Summary Judgment: Tests whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact on the pretrial record (pleadings, discovery, affidavits).
• Rule 50 JML: Tests whether there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on the trial record for a reasonable jury to find for the non‑movant.
• Rule 59 New Trial: Asks the trial judge to set aside the verdict and hold a new trial because of errors, misconduct, or a verdict against the weight of the evidence.

JML is unique to jury trials. In a bench trial, the judge is the factfinder and simply decides the case; there is no need to ask the judge to “take the case from the jury.”

Constitutional backdrop: the Seventh Amendment

Key Term: Seventh Amendment Reexamination Clause
The provision of the Seventh Amendment that prohibits federal courts from reexamining facts tried by a jury, otherwise than according to the rules of the common law.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial in most federal civil actions and restricts how judges may interfere with jury fact‑finding. That is why Rule 50:

• Allows the judge to remove a claim from the jury before deliberations if no reasonable jury could find for the non‑movant, and
• Requires a pre‑verdict Rule 50(a) motion as a precondition to a post‑verdict Rule 50(b) motion.

By treating the judge’s later ruling as a reconsideration of the earlier legal question (was there enough evidence to go to the jury?), Rule 50 respects the Seventh Amendment’s limits on reexamining jury findings.

When Can a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Be Made

A party may move for JML at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. This includes:

• At the close of the opposing party’s evidence
• At the close of all evidence
• After both sides have rested but before the judge instructs the jury and sends it to deliberate

The motion can be made by any party—plaintiff or defendant—on any claim or defense as long as the procedural prerequisites are met.

However, Rule 50 also requires that the non‑moving party has been “fully heard” on the issue.

Key Term: Fully Heard
The point at trial when a party has had a complete opportunity to present all evidence on a particular issue (for example, after that party has rested its case on liability).

So, for example:

• A defendant can move for JML on negligence after the plaintiff rests, because the plaintiff has been fully heard on negligence. The defendant can renew the motion at the close of all the evidence.
• A plaintiff can move for JML on an affirmative defense (such as statute of limitations) after the defendant has presented all evidence on that defense.
• In a multi‑issue case, a party may be fully heard on some issues (e.g., liability) but not others (e.g., punitive damages) at different times; JML can be targeted accordingly.

The motion must specify:

• The judgment sought (e.g., judgment as a matter of law on liability, or on a particular claim or defense), and
• The law and facts entitling the movant to judgment

This specificity is important both at trial and later. The grounds stated in the Rule 50(a) motion define the scope of what can be raised in a renewed Rule 50(b) motion after verdict. You cannot broaden your theories in the renewed motion.

The court can grant partial JML; it may direct a verdict on some issues (e.g., liability) and leave others (e.g., damages) to the jury.

Key Term: Partial Judgment as a Matter of Law
A JML ruling that resolves fewer than all issues in the case (for example, entering judgment on liability but allowing the jury to decide damages).

Partial JML is often used to:

• Remove from the jury an element that is unsupported by evidence (for example, punitive damages or a particular theory of liability), while leaving the rest of the case intact
• Narrow issues for the jury by eliminating claims or defenses that lack evidentiary support

Who may move, and can the court act on its own

• Either party may make a Rule 50(a) motion.
• The court may grant JML on its own in favor of a party, but practically this is usually done in response to a motion or after indicating on the record that the evidentiary basis is insufficient.

On the MBE, assume that a JML ruling is based on a party’s motion unless the facts clearly indicate otherwise.

Legal Standard for Judgment as a Matter of Law

The court must grant JML if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non‑moving party, it finds that no reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for that party on the issue.

Key Term: Reasonable Jury Standard
A standard asking whether any reasonable jury could find for the non‑moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor and without weighing credibility.

Key Term: Legally Sufficient Evidentiary Basis
Enough evidence—direct or circumstantial—that a reasonable jury could, but is not required to, find for the non‑moving party on the issue.

Important features of the JML standard:

• The judge does not weigh evidence or assess witness credibility; those are jury functions.
• The judge assumes the truth of the non‑movant’s evidence and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences.
• A mere “scintilla” of evidence—something trivial or speculative—is not enough; there must be a real evidentiary basis upon which a reasonable jury could find for the non‑movant.
• Conflicting evidence normally precludes JML; if both sides have presented some evidence, and a rational jury could believe either, the jury, not the judge, decides which version to believe.
• JML focuses on legal sufficiency, not persuasiveness; the question is “Could any reasonable jury find this?” not “Would I, as judge, find this?”

This standard is functionally similar to the summary judgment standard, but applied after trial evidence has been presented instead of on pretrial discovery materials.

Comparison with Summary Judgment

Key Term: Summary Judgment
A pretrial ruling under Rule 56 that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, based on the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits.

Both summary judgment and JML ask essentially the same legal question: Could a reasonable factfinder return a verdict for the non‑movant on the evidence presented?

Key differences:

• Timing and Record - Summary judgment (Rule 56): decided before trial, on the basis of pleadings, depositions, interrogatory answers, admissions, and affidavits.
  • JML (Rule 50): decided during or after trial, based only on admitted trial evidence.
• Factfinder status - Summary judgment assumes a hypothetical reasonable jury.
  • JML is directed at an actual jury that is about to deliberate (Rule 50(a)) or that has already returned a verdict (Rule 50(b)).
• Procedural posture - A summary judgment ruling can narrow or eliminate issues before trial.
  • A JML ruling either takes issues away from the jury or sets aside its verdict afterward.

On the MBE, if you see a question asking whether a motion during trial should be granted because “no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff,” you are almost certainly dealing with JML, not summary judgment.

Renewal After the Verdict: Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)

If a party moves for JML before the case goes to the jury and the motion is denied or reserved, that party may renew the motion after the jury returns a verdict. This renewed motion is often called judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).

The renewed motion:

• Must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment
• Is limited to the same issues and grounds raised in the earlier Rule 50(a) motion
• Is evaluated under the same “reasonable jury” standard

Key Term: Provisional Denial Rule
The principle that a court’s denial of a Rule 50(a) motion is considered provisional, allowing the court to revisit the sufficiency of the evidence on a renewed Rule 50(b) motion after the verdict, consistent with the Seventh Amendment.

The purpose of requiring an earlier JML motion is constitutional: the Seventh Amendment limits a judge’s ability to reexamine a jury’s factual findings. By moving before the case goes to the jury, the party gives the judge a chance to remove the case from the jury before a verdict, making the later ruling a reconsideration of a previously presented legal question, rather than a fresh reexamination of jury fact‑finding.

Timing of the Renewed Motion

Key Term: Entry of Judgment
The formal act by which the clerk records the court’s final decision on the civil docket; this date starts the 28‑day clock for post‑trial motions such as renewed JML and new trial.

A renewed JML motion must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment, and this 28‑day period cannot be extended by the court. Rule 6(b) expressly forbids extending the time for Rule 50(b) or Rule 59 motions.

If timely, the court may:

• Grant the renewed JML (entering judgment for the movant)
• Deny it
• Grant a new trial instead of or in addition to renewed JML

On the MBE, any answer choice suggesting that a judge may extend the time to file a renewed JML beyond 28 days is incorrect.

Prerequisite for Renewal: The “Provisional Denial” Rule

A party must have made a JML motion before the case was submitted to the jury in order to renew the motion after the verdict. If the party fails to do so, the right to seek JNOV is waived.

This means:

• If you never made a Rule 50(a) motion, you cannot file a Rule 50(b) renewed motion.
• If you made a Rule 50(a) motion only on certain issues, your Rule 50(b) motion is limited to those issues and grounds; you cannot add new theories.

On the MBE, this is a classic trap: a party who failed to move for JML during trial cannot later obtain JNOV, and generally cannot challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for the verdict on appeal.

Another subtle trap: a renewed JML motion cannot assert new theories that were not raised in the original Rule 50(a) motion. A party cannot use Rule 50(b) to raise entirely new grounds for judgment.

Distinction from Motion for New Trial

A motion for new trial (Rule 59) is different from JML/JNOV in both standard and effect.

Key Term: Motion for New Trial
A post‑verdict motion asking the court to set aside the verdict and order a new trial because of trial error, a verdict against the weight of the evidence, juror misconduct, or an excessive or inadequate damages award.

Key differences:

• Standard - JML/JNOV: whether any reasonable jury could find for the non‑movant on the evidence presented.
  • New trial: whether the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, there were significant trial errors, juror misconduct, or the damages are shockingly high or low.
• Judge’s role - JML/JNOV: judge does not weigh evidence or assess credibility; the judge takes the non‑movant’s evidence as true, and asks whether it is legally sufficient.
  • New trial: judge may weigh evidence and credibility and may set aside a verdict that, while supported by some evidence, is so clearly against the weight of the evidence that letting it stand would be a miscarriage of justice.
• Result - JML/JNOV: the court enters judgment as a matter of law for one party—no new trial unless ordered in the alternative.
  • New trial: the case is retried; the verdict is vacated but no judgment is entered for either party.

A motion for new trial must also be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment, and the court can grant a new trial on its own initiative within that period.

Key Term: Remittitur
A procedure in which the judge offers the plaintiff the choice between accepting a reduced damages award or undergoing a new trial, when the original award is so excessive that it shocks the conscience.

Key Term: Additur
A procedure in which a judge increases a jury’s damages award and offers the defendant the choice between accepting the higher award or undergoing a new trial; additur is unconstitutional in federal court under the Seventh Amendment.

MBE Tip:
A verdict that is merely “against the weight of the evidence” supports a new trial, not JML. JML requires that no reasonable jury could have found as the jury did.

Combined motions and conditional rulings

Courts often see combined motions: a party may move both for renewed JML and for a new trial in the alternative. If the court grants JML, Rule 50(c) requires the judge to state conditionally how it would rule on the new‑trial motion in case the JML is reversed on appeal.

Key Term: Rule 50(c) Conditional Ruling
A requirement that when a court grants a renewed JML motion, it must also state, in the alternative, whether it would grant a new trial if the judgment is later vacated or reversed on appeal.

This avoids the need for a remand to decide the new‑trial motion if the appellate court reverses the JML.

Bench Trials and Judgments on Partial Findings

In a nonjury (bench) trial, Rule 50 does not apply because there is no jury. Instead, Rule 52(c) allows a similar—but not identical—device.

Key Term: Judgment on Partial Findings
In a bench trial, a judgment under Rule 52(c) entered after a party has been fully heard on an issue, when the judge finds against that party on that issue and it disposes of a claim or defense.

Key points:

• The judge may enter judgment on partial findings any time after a party has been fully heard on an issue.
• Unlike JML, the judge in a bench trial may weigh evidence and make credibility determinations because the judge is the factfinder.
• The judge must support the judgment with findings of fact and conclusions of law, either orally on the record or in writing.

On the MBE, if you have a bench trial and a mid‑trial motion arguing that the evidence is not credible, the correct mechanism is judgment on partial findings, not Rule 50 JML, and the judge is allowed to evaluate credibility.

Appellate Review and Preservation of Error

JML rulings and denials raise several important appellate issues that are fair game on the MBE.

Key Term: De Novo Review
A standard of appellate review in which the appellate court gives no deference to the trial court’s ruling and decides the issue as if it were being considered for the first time.

Key Term: Abuse of Discretion
A deferential standard of appellate review, under which the appellate court will overturn the trial judge’s ruling only if it was arbitrary, unreasonable, or based on an incorrect view of the law.

• Standard of review - Appellate courts review grants or denials of JML de novo, applying the same “reasonable jury” standard as the trial court.
  • For new‑trial rulings, appellate courts use a much more deferential standard, reversing only for abuse of discretion.
• Effect of failing to renew - If a party fails to move for a renewed JML under Rule 50(b) or fails to move for a new trial, that party is generally precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.
  • A few courts sometimes review for plain error, but for MBE purposes you should assume that failure to file a Rule 50(b) or Rule 59 motion forfeits the sufficiency argument.

Key Term: Harmless Error
An error that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties; appellate courts will not reverse a judgment based on harmless error.

Key Term: Plain Error
An obvious and serious error affecting substantial rights, which an appellate court may correct even though it was not properly preserved at trial.

Thus, on an MBE fact pattern in which a losing party did not make any JML motion at trial and did not file a renewed JML or new‑trial motion, an appellate court will generally not order judgment for that party on the ground that the evidence was insufficient, though it might affirm or remand based on other issues.

Worked Example 1.1

After a federal jury trial, the defendant moves for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. The judge denies the motion. The defendant renews the motion at the close of all evidence; the judge again denies it. The jury returns a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant files a renewed motion for JML (JNOV) 20 days after judgment is entered, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict. What should the court do?

Answer:
The court should consider the renewed motion. The defendant made a timely Rule 50(a) JML motion before the case went to the jury (indeed, twice) and then renewed it within 28 days after judgment under Rule 50(b). The court will grant JNOV only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, no reasonable jury could have found for the plaintiff on the evidence presented.

Worked Example 1.1

The plaintiff in a federal jury trial does not move for judgment as a matter of law before the case is submitted to the jury. The jury returns a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff files a motion for JNOV 10 days later, arguing that the verdict is unsupported by the evidence. What result?

Answer:
The court must deny the motion. Because the plaintiff did not make a Rule 50(a) JML motion before the case was submitted to the jury, the plaintiff cannot file a renewed Rule 50(b) motion. The right to seek JNOV is waived. The plaintiff may still move for a new trial, arguing that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence or that there were trial errors, but cannot obtain judgment as a matter of law.

Worked Example 1.2

In a federal diversity defamation action, the mayor sues a blogger. After the mayor rests, the blogger moves for JML, arguing that the mayor failed to present any evidence of falsity, an element required by state law. The judge reviews the evidence, concludes that no reasonable jury could find falsity, and grants the motion, entering judgment for the blogger. On appeal, the mayor argues that the judge applied the wrong standard because the evidence, while weak, could support a verdict if believed. How should the appellate court rule?

Answer:
The judgment should be affirmed if the trial judge applied the correct Rule 50 standard: whether a reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient basis to find falsity for the mayor, viewing the evidence in her favor without weighing credibility. If the evidence of falsity was so lacking that no reasonable jury could find for the mayor, granting JML was proper. The appellate court reviews the JML ruling de novo, under the same standard.

Worked Example 1.3

At the close of all evidence in a federal jury trial, the defendant moves for JML on liability and on punitive damages. The judge grants JML on punitive damages but denies it on liability, sending liability and compensatory damages to the jury. The jury finds the defendant liable and awards compensatory damages only. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the JML on punitive damages. What standard should the appellate court apply?

Answer:
The appellate court applies the same Rule 50 standard: whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, any reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient basis to award punitive damages under the applicable substantive law. The fact that the JML was partial (only on punitive damages) does not change the standard.

Worked Example 1.4

In a jury trial, the defendant moves for JML at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The motion is denied. The defendant then presents evidence but does not renew the JML motion at the close of all evidence. The jury returns a verdict for the plaintiff. Within 20 days after entry of judgment, the defendant files a renewed JML motion. How should the court rule?

Answer:
The court should hear the renewed motion. Rule 50(a) allows a JML motion “at any time before the case is submitted to the jury.” Under the current rule, it is sufficient that the defendant moved for JML at some point after the plaintiff was fully heard on the issue and before submission to the jury; renewal at the precise moment the evidence closes is not required. The renewed motion will be granted only if, taking all trial evidence into account and viewing it favorably to the plaintiff, no reasonable jury could have found for the plaintiff.

Worked Example 1.5

In a federal jury trial, the plaintiff sues for negligence. Both sides present evidence, and the case goes to the jury without any JML motion. The jury finds for the defendant. The plaintiff timely moves for a new trial, arguing that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. The plaintiff does not move for JML. On appeal, after the new‑trial motion is denied, the plaintiff argues that the evidence was legally insufficient and asks the appellate court to direct judgment in her favor. What is the likely result?

Answer:
The appellate court should refuse to direct judgment for the plaintiff. Because the plaintiff never filed a Rule 50(a) motion (and therefore never filed a Rule 50(b) renewed motion), she failed to preserve a sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence challenge. While the appellate court can review the denial of the new‑trial motion for abuse of discretion, it generally cannot enter judgment as a matter of law for a party who did not comply with Rule 50. Failure to use Rule 50 procedurally waives the right to JML relief on appeal.

Worked Example 1.6

In a bench trial (no jury), the plaintiff sues for breach of contract. After the plaintiff rests, the defendant moves “for judgment as a matter of law” on the ground that the plaintiff’s witnesses were not credible. What is the appropriate standard and procedural device?

Answer:
The court should treat the motion as one for judgment on partial findings under Rule 52(c), not as a Rule 50 motion. In a bench trial, the judge acts as factfinder and may weigh evidence and make credibility determinations. If, after the plaintiff has been fully heard, the judge finds against the plaintiff on a dispositive issue (such as existence of a contract), the judge may enter judgment on partial findings, supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Worked Example 1.7

In a jury trial, the jury returns a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $10 million. The defendant timely moves for renewed JML, arguing there was no legally sufficient evidence of liability, and moves in the alternative for a new trial, arguing that the damages are so excessive that they shock the conscience. The court grants JML for the defendant and conditionally states that, if JML is reversed on appeal, it would grant a new trial on damages only. On appeal, the court of appeals reverses the JML. What happens next?

Answer:
The case returns to the trial court, which must then implement its conditional ruling on the new‑trial motion. Because the trial judge stated that it would grant a new trial on damages if JML were reversed, the trial court will order a new trial limited to damages. This illustrates why Rule 50(c) requires the trial court to rule conditionally on any accompanying new‑trial motion when granting renewed JML.

Exam Warning

If a party fails to move for JML before the case is submitted to the jury, that party cannot seek JNOV after the verdict. This is a common MBE trap. Another trap: confusing the JML standard (“no reasonable jury”) with the new‑trial standard (“against the weight of the evidence”).

Also remember:

• A renewed JML motion and a motion for new trial must each be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment.
• This 28‑day limit cannot be extended, so an answer choice suggesting the court may enlarge that time is incorrect.
• Failure to file a renewed JML or a new‑trial motion generally prevents an appellate court from entering judgment for the moving party based on evidentiary insufficiency.

Revision Tip

Remember:

• JML / directed verdict = Rule 50(a), before jury deliberates, after the opponent has been fully heard.
• JNOV / renewed JML = Rule 50(b), after verdict, within 28 days, and only if JML was made earlier.
• New trial = Rule 59, different standard; the judge can weigh evidence and order a new trial without entering judgment for either party.
• Bench trial equivalent = Rule 52(c) judgment on partial findings, where the judge can weigh evidence and decide facts.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Judgment as a matter of law (JML) is a Rule 50 motion made before the case is submitted to the jury, after the opponent has been fully heard on the issue.
• JML may be made by either party and may target specific claims, defenses, or issues, including liability, damages, or punitive damages.
• The JML standard is whether a reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the non‑movant, viewing the evidence in that party’s favor and drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.
• The judge does not weigh evidence or judge credibility when ruling on JML; those are jury functions.
• JML may be partial, resolving some issues (such as liability) while leaving others (such as damages) for the jury.
• The JML standard is closely related to the summary judgment standard, but JML is based solely on trial evidence, while summary judgment is based on the pretrial record.
• A renewed JML motion (JNOV) may be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment, but only if the party made a Rule 50(a) JML motion before the case went to the jury.
• The renewed motion is limited to the same issues and grounds raised in the earlier JML motion; new theories cannot be introduced for the first time in Rule 50(b).
• Failure to move for JML before submission to the jury waives the right to seek renewed JML and generally precludes appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency.
• A motion for new trial (Rule 59) is distinct: it allows the judge to weigh evidence and grant a new trial if the verdict is against the weight of the evidence or if there was serious trial error or juror misconduct.
• Both renewed JML and motions for new trial must be filed within 28 days after judgment, and that deadline cannot be extended under Rule 6(b).
• When granting renewed JML, the court must make a conditional ruling on any accompanying new‑trial motion under Rule 50(c), indicating how it would rule if the JML is reversed on appeal.
• In bench trials, the analogue to JML is judgment on partial findings under Rule 52(c); there, the judge may weigh evidence and must make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Appellate courts review JML rulings de novo, but review new‑trial decisions for abuse of discretion.
• Failure to comply with Rule 50 (by omitting a pre‑verdict motion or an appropriate post‑verdict motion) generally prevents an appellate court from granting judgment for the appellant based on evidentiary insufficiency.
• The Seventh Amendment Reexamination Clause explains why a pre‑verdict Rule 50(a) motion is required as a prerequisite to a post‑verdict Rule 50(b) motion: it prevents improper reexamination of jury fact‑finding.
• Remittitur is permitted in federal court as a condition on denying a new trial when damages are excessive, but additur (increasing damages) is unconstitutional in federal court under the Seventh Amendment.
• In a bench trial, a mid‑trial attack on the sufficiency or credibility of the opposing party’s proof should be treated as a Rule 52(c) judgment on partial findings, not a Rule 50 JML motion.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Judgment as a Matter of Law (JML)
• Directed Verdict
• Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)
• Rule 50(a) Motion
• Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
• Fully Heard
• Partial Judgment as a Matter of Law
• Reasonable Jury Standard
• Legally Sufficient Evidentiary Basis
• Summary Judgment
• Provisional Denial Rule
• Entry of Judgment
• Motion for New Trial
• Remittitur
• Additur
• Judgment on Partial Findings
• Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
• Seventh Amendment Reexamination Clause
• Rule 50(c) Conditional Ruling
• De Novo Review
• Abuse of Discretion
• Harmless Error
• Plain Error