FRCP · Rule 50
An overview of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, addressing judgment as a matter of law in civil trials.
Source: FRCP Rule 50
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 basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may: (1) resolve the issue against the party; and (2) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on that issue.
Rule 50 allows for a judgment to be made in favor of one party when the other party has been fully heard but there is insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in that party's favor. Essentially, it allows the court to take the decision out of the jury's hands when the evidence does not support a claim.
The purpose of this rule is to prevent cases with insufficient evidence from being decided by a jury, thus preserving judicial resources and ensuring that only legally sufficient cases are presented to juries.
This permits a judge to direct a verdict when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to reach a different conclusion.
Post-verdict, a party can renew its motion for JMOL, asking the court to rule that no reasonable jury could have reached a different verdict.
This case distinguished the standard for JMOL, affirming that it should only be granted when there is a complete absence of evidence supporting the opposing party's case.
The Supreme Court held that a jury verdict cannot be overturned unless there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party.
In exams, be prepared to analyze scenarios where a party may seek JMOL and apply the standard for judgment as a matter of law based on the presented evidence.