#JMOL TRIAL TRIAL#

As with all errors committed at trial, a litmus test for reversal is whether the appellant was thereby unjustly prejudiced.' Asbill v. Such a requirement would make little sense, especially where - as here - the damages for the breach-of-contract claim were the same whether the breach was for the condition-of assets-claim or the production capacity claim.įurthermore, as the Tenth Circuit has noted, Sunkist 'does not paint with as broad a brush as appears from the language quoted. BP Amoco does not cite any cases supporting that the verdict form must itemize damages or reflect the damages theory or theories applied by the jury. It simply did not itemize the amount of damages awarded. Unlike the cases upon which BP Amoco relies, the verdict form in this case was not 'general' in the traditional sense as to the question of liability or defenses. 19 (1962), BP Amoco asserts that because of the general verdict form in this case, any error - legal or evidentiary - automatically results in reversal. Sunkist Does Not Require Reversal for a Single Error

#JMOL TRIAL TRIAL#

The Seventh Circuit reviews new trial motions for an abuse of discretion, which occurs only when no reasonable person could agree with the district court. Federal courts will not 'set aside a jury verdict if a reasonable basis exists in the record to support the verdict, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and leaving issues of credibility and weight of evidence to the jury.'. A verdict will be set aside as contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence only if 'no rational jury' could have rendered the verdict. 2004) (citations and quotations omitted). for other reasons, the trial was not fair to the party moving.' Kapelanski v. 'In ruling on a motion for new trial, federal law requires a district court to determine whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. 'A party seeking to reverse a district court's denial of a motion for a new trial bears a particularly heavy burden.' Moore ex rel. In the alternative, BP Amoco seeks a new trial pursuant to Rule 59(a).

A verdict will be set aside as contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence only if no rational jury could have rendered the verdict.' Staub v. As the Seventh Circuit has noted, 'the standard is steep. In assessing a motion under Rule 50(b), courts view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the party who prevailed under the verdict and 'do not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.' Tate, 546 F.3d at 532 Reeves, 530 U.S. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Ill., 226 F.3d 922, 924 (7th Cir. Considering the totality of the evidence, courts determine whether the jury was presented with a 'legally sufficient amount of evidence from which it could reasonably derive its verdict.' Massey v. 2008) (citations and quotations omitted). 'Once a jury has spoken, we are obliged to construe the facts in favor of the parties who prevailed under the verdict.' Tate v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. When ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law following a jury verdict, courts do not re-weigh the evidence presented at trial or make credibility determinations. Judgment As a Matter of Law Pursuant to Rule 50(b)

The standard under both rules is difficult to satisfy.Ī. 25, 2010):īP Amoco seeks relief under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a).

Jmol trial