JMOL Case Study

In the federal courts judgment as a matter of law is governed under Rule 50(a) also commonly known as JMOL. In a JMOL the judge not the jury will find for or against one of the parties in a trial. JMOL is available before the jury begins to deliberate but only after one or both parties have finished presenting their case. After the plaintiff has finished presenting his case including all supporting evidence the defendant has the opportunity to argue that no jury would be in favor of the plaintiff based on such evidence or lack thereof, therefore the court should rule in favor of the defendant. In a motion for JMOL a party is saying that all the evidence and the law supports in the opposing side, if the judge agrees stating that all facts and the law in facts lie with the defendant and the judge grands the motion than the judge will decide on the issue not the jury. However if the judge does not grand the motion than a jury will have to decide on the issue. It is important to note that if the judge denied the motion and the jury has issued a verdict the losing party can ask for JMLO again as long as the request for

Atkins, is an example of JMOL and JNOV; plaintiff (Cody) brought suit for injuries allegedly sustained in an automobile accident between her car and defendant (Atkins ') pickup truck. The case was tried by a six- person jury. At the close of the defendant 's case, the plaintiff moved for a directed verdict pursuant to Rule 50, which the court denied. The jury returned with a verdict in favor of the defendant. After trial, the plaintiff filed a motion rule 50(b) judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial. The trial court denied both motions, and the plaintiff appealed to the state supreme court. That court ruled that the defendant 's evidence had been sufficient to raise a jury question regarding negligence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs post-trial motions.