Writing Judgment As A Matter Of Law

In the United States, a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a claim made by a party during a trial that asserts the opposing party does not have enough evidence to support its case. The motion for judgment as a matter of law is one of many devices available to the judge to control the freedom of the jury. The rules for making a motion for judgment as a matter of law in federal civil proceedings are found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 50. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.

Motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL)

In the United States courts, a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party during a trial, claiming that the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. It is a device available to the judge to control the freedom of the jury. The motion for JMOL can be made only after the opposing party has presented its case. In civil cases, once the plaintiff has presented its case, the defendant can move for JMOL. However, once the defendant has finished presenting its case, both the plaintiff and the defendant can move for JMOL.

JMOL is also known as a directed verdict, which it has replaced in American federal courts. It is similar to judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, all of which test the factual sufficiency of a claim. Judgment on the pleadings is a motion made after pleading and before discovery; summary judgment happens after discovery and before trial; JMOL occurs during the trial. In United States federal courts, JMOL is a creation of Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion for JMOL asserts that the evidence allows only one result: victory for the moving party, even if a jury has found otherwise. It is decided by the standard of whether a reasonable jury could find in favor of the party opposing the JMOL motion. If there is no evidence to support a reasonable conclusion for the opposing party, judgment is entered by the court, and the case is over. If there is sufficient evidence to make a reasonable conclusion in favor of the opposing party, but there is equally strong evidence to support an opposite conclusion, the party with the burden of persuasion fails.

JMOL motions may also be made after the verdict is returned and are then called "renewed" motions for judgment as a matter of law (RJMOL), but the motion is still commonly known by its former name, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or JNOV.

Directed verdict

In the United States, a motion for a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party during a trial, claiming that the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. JMOL is also known as a directed verdict, which it has replaced in American federal courts.

A directed verdict is a judgment of acquittal for the defendant in a criminal case. There are two types of directed verdicts: the first and most common type is when the claimant's proof is inadequate, and the second is when the claimant's evidence is overwhelming, or the evidence on a defense is either inadequate or overwhelming. A trial judge cannot enter a directed verdict unless there is a complete absence of proof on a material issue or if no disputed issues of fact exist upon which reasonable minds could differ. Motions for a directed verdict are governed by Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The judgment as a matter of law is one of many devices available to the judge to control the freedom of the jury. It is probably the most important. Without a method to take cases away from the jury, the court would be unable to dispose of frivolous cases prior to trial. For example, a person sues her neighbor, claiming the neighbor was rude to her. If the jury were totally free to decide issues of law and fact, the plaintiff would be entitled to a jury trial on the issue of whether being rude to one’s neighbor is actionable. A second reason for restricting jury freedom is to prevent jury lawlessness. Were a jury allowed to decide cases on an ad hoc basis, the law would be both uncertain and inconsistent. Parties in like positions would not be treated alike, and the uncertainty would encourage litigation.

Timing is very important in making a motion for JMOL; the motion can be made only after the opposing party has presented its case. In civil cases, the plaintiff presents its case, the defendant presents its case, and the plaintiff may present a rebuttal. Therefore, once the plaintiff has presented its case, the defendant but not the plaintiff can move for JMOL. However, once the defendant has finished presenting its case, both the plaintiff and the defendant can move for JMOL.

Judgment on the pleadings

In the United States, a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party during a trial, claiming that the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. It is similar to a judgment on the pleadings and a summary judgment, all of which test the factual sufficiency of a claim. A judgment on the pleadings is a motion made after pleading and before discovery, whereas a summary judgment occurs after discovery and before trial, and a JMOL takes place during the trial.

A judgment on the pleadings is a motion for a court to rule in favour of one party based on the pleadings on file, without accepting any evidence. This is done when the outcome of a case rests on the court's interpretation of the law. It is used to dispose of baseless claims or defences when the formal pleadings reveal their lack of merit. A judgment on the pleadings is typically made after the pleadings are closed but before the trial, and it is only appropriate when all material allegations of fact are admitted in the pleadings, and only questions of law remain.

In civil cases, the plaintiff presents its case, followed by the defendant, and the plaintiff may present a rebuttal. The defendant can move for a JMOL once the plaintiff has presented their case, and both parties can move for a JMOL after the defendant has presented their case. The timing of a JMOL motion is crucial, as it can only be made after the opposing party has presented its case.

The judgment as a matter of law is a tool for judges to control the freedom of the jury and prevent jury lawlessness. It allows the court to dispose of frivolous cases before they go to trial and ensures that parties in like positions are treated alike. The all-evidence test, also known as the set-aside test, is used to determine whether a judge should grant a judgment as a matter of law.

Summary judgment

In the United States federal courts, a motion for summary judgment is a device available to the judge to control the freedom of the jury. It is a method for promptly disposing of actions in which there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Summary judgment occurs after discovery and before trial.

A party moving for summary judgment is attempting to avoid the time and expense of a trial when, in their view, the outcome is obvious. This is typically stated as when all the evidence likely to be put forward is such that no reasonable factfinder could disagree with the moving party. Sometimes, this occurs when there is no real dispute about what happened, but it also frequently occurs when there is a nominal dispute but the non-moving party cannot produce enough evidence to support its position. A party may also move for summary judgment to eliminate the risk of losing at trial and possibly avoid having to go through discovery.

Judges may also grant partial summary judgment to resolve some issues in the case and leave the others for trial. For example, a judge might rule on some factual issues pre-trial but leave the more complicated ones for trial. Alternatively, a judge might grant summary judgment regarding liability but still hold a trial to determine damages.

In many jurisdictions, a party moving for summary judgment takes the risk that, although the judge may agree there are no material issues of fact remaining for trial, the judge may also find that it is the non-moving party that is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In the United States federal courts, summary judgment is governed by Federal Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law (RJMOL)

In the United States courts, a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party during a trial, claiming that the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. It is decided by the standard of whether a reasonable jury could find in favour of the party opposing the JMOL motion.

JMOL motions may also be made after the verdict is returned and are then called "renewed" motions for judgment as a matter of law (RJMOL). However, the motion is still commonly known by its former name, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or JNOV. The timing of making a motion for JMOL is crucial; the motion can only be made after the opposing party has presented its case.

The judgment as a matter of law is one of many tools available to the judge to control the freedom of the jury. It is probably the most important. Two main arguments favour limiting jury freedom. First, without a method to take cases away from the jury, the court would be unable to dispose of frivolous cases before the trial. For example, a person sues their neighbour, claiming the neighbour was rude to them. If the jury were entirely free to decide issues of law and fact, the plaintiff would be entitled to a jury trial on the issue of whether being rude to one's neighbour is actionable.

A second reason to restrict jury freedom is to prevent jury lawlessness. If a jury were allowed to decide cases on an ad hoc basis, the law would be both uncertain and inconsistent. Parties in similar positions would not be treated the same, and the uncertainty would encourage litigation. A jury might decide to award damages because it was prejudiced against the defendant, even though no rule of law supported its decision. A sympathetic jury might decide to award damages to an injured person even though no evidence connects the defendant to the injury.

Frequently asked questions