1 / 13

Taking the Case from the Jury

Taking the Case from the Jury. Directed Verdict Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Rule 50) Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Renewed Request for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Rule 50). Directed Verdict. Sufficiency of Evidence /Burden of Production

shayna
Download Presentation

Taking the Case from the Jury

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Taking the Case from the Jury Directed VerdictMotion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Rule 50) Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Renewed Request for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Rule 50)

  2. Directed Verdict Sufficiency of Evidence /Burden of Production • Plaintiff bears burden of production and burden of persuasion on each element of prima facie case • Burden of Production: Judge decides if party (typically the plaintiff) has produced evidence sufficient to justify sending the case to the jury • Burden of Persuasion: Jury decides if plaintiff has proven case by a preponderance of the evidence • Directed Verdict Motion tests whether party has met her burden of production.

  3. Easy Example: Contracts Case • Elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, breach, damages • Plaintiff Claims Def Breached Contract • Plaintiff’s Evidence of Contract: Defendant and I eyed each other in parking lot. I gave him the thumbs up sign and nodded; he did likewise. Plaintiff rests. • Defendant moves for directed verdict

  4. Lavender v. Kurn • Haney found dead near RR tracks • Suit against RR based on negligence • Pl claims RR’s protruding mail hook struck Haney and killed him • RR claim Haney killed by hobo • Jury ruled for Pl. Reversed on appeal: insufficient evidence to send case to jury

  5. Lavender v. Kurn Plaintiffs Evidence: • Series of measurements showing height of nearby mound and Haney’s possible proximity to RR and protruding mail hook. • Problems with hobo theory -- wallet, watch and ring not taken.

  6. RR’s Evidence • Math calculations about distance of mound in from RR tracks making it unlikely mail hook could reach Haney. • Many hobos hang near RR yard at night.

  7. Lavender v. Kurn • Issue: is there sufficient evidence to support PL’s claim the Haney was killed by protruding RR hook? • What is Standard for Assessing the Sufficiency of the Evidence? Possible formulations: • Mere scintilla • Substantial Evidence • More than equal possibilities • “No legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable juror to find for that party on that issue.” FRCP 50(a)(1) • Does the record contain proof beyond rank speculation

  8. Whose Evidence Counts • Plaintiff puts on case; Defendant may move for directed verdict. Outcome turns on sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence. FR 50(a)(2) • Plaintiff puts on case. Defendant counters with his own evidence. Defendant moves for directed verdict at the close of all evidence. Should court examine only the sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence or may court consider all the evidence? FR 50(a)(2) • Issue: what is the significance of defendant’s evidence in assessing the adequacy of plaintiff’s showing to get to the jury? • Standard: Judge should consider all evidence, but in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Judge may consider defendant evidence that a juror could not reasonably reject, but Judge cannot weigh credibility or choose among competing witnesses. • Employment Discrimination Example.

  9. Directed Verdict v. JNOV • Identical Substantive Standard • Only Difference is Timing • Rule 50(b) Renewal of Motion • Procedural Prerequisite for JNOV Motion

  10. Post Trial Motions • JNOV – Renewal of Request for Judgment as a Matter of Law. FR 50(b) • Motion for New Trial. FR 59 • Within 10 days of entry of judgment. FR 50(b) • May assert both in the alternative. FR 50(b)

  11. Motion for New Trial • Ahern v. Scholz: breach of contract case brought by Ahern, a business manger, against Scholz, a musician and former client. • Jury rendered verdict against Scholz and awarded Ahern damages. • Court denied Scholz motion for a new trial • Scholz Appeals

  12. Grounds for Seeking a New TrailFR 59 Grounds “for which new trials have heretofore been granted.” • erroneous rulings during trial that may have tainted the verdict (evidentiary rulings, jury instructions • the verdict is against the weight of the evidence • What ground was at issue in Ahern v. Scholz • What is the judge’s role in assessing this ground?

  13. Appeal of Ruling on Motion for New Trial • Suppose motion is granted. Appealable. No. Why not? • Suppose motion is denied, as in Ahern v. Shulz. • What was the standard of review in Ahern v. Schulz. • Is the standard of review the same if the new trial motion is based on an erroneous evidentiary ruling or jury instruction.

More Related