A retailer brought a federal diversity action against a wholesaler, alleging breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. After the parties presented their evidence at trial, the court instructed the jury on the law. Neither party filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law before the case went to the jury.
The jury found for the retailer on both claims. After the court entered judgment on the verdict, the wholesaler moved for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict on either claim. The court acknowledged that there had been problems with some of the evidence, but it denied the motions. The wholesaler appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
Should the appellate court consider the wholesaler’s challenge?
A- No, because a determination of the sufficiency of the evidence is solely within the jury’s province.
B- No, because the wholesaler did not raise the sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue in a motion for judgment as a matter of law before the case went to the jury.
C- Yes, because the challenge was raised and ruled on by the trial court before the wholesaler filed the appeal.
D- Yes, because, as the trial court acknowledged, the wholesaler has strong arguments on the challenge.
Answer
My question- obviously the man can't appeal renewed JMOL bc he didn't raise it during trial. But why can't he appeal the motion for a new trial? From my understanding, the man made two motions 1) renewed JMOL and 2) motion for new trial.
civ pro JMOL/motion for new trial question Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm
- RCSOB657
- Posts: 3346
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:50 am
Re: civ pro JMOL/motion for new trial question
He's trying to appeal a weight of evidence issue without bringing it up before deliberation to preserve appeal. Trier of fact is the stop to that and it wasn't done in time. There is no assignable error for an appellate court to review.
-
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm
Re: civ pro JMOL/motion for new trial question
Ah, got it.RCSOB657 wrote:He's trying to appeal a weight of evidence issue without bringing it up before deliberation to preserve appeal. Trier of fact is the stop to that and it wasn't done in time. There is no assignable error for an appellate court to review.