Also known as: judgment as a matter of law · JMOL
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural device by which a court removes an issue or claim from the jury and enters judgment when the nonmoving party has been fully heard and the record contains no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find in that party's favor on the issue.
Bianca, a banker, sued Red Investments after purchasing shares. She testified she relied only on a friend's oral tip and a brochure while ignoring the risk disclosures. After she rested, Red Investments moved for judgment as a matter of law before submission to the jury. The court granted the motion because no reasonable jury could find justifiable reliance on the record.
Elm Eco sued Pinnacle Clean for public nuisance after presenting photographs, resident testimony, and an inspection report. Pinnacle Clean moved for judgment as a matter of law immediately after Elm Eco rested, specifying the judgment sought and the facts showing insufficient proof of causation. The motion occurred before the case went to the jury.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Dusk Outlet sued Ridge Retail for breach after packages disappeared. After Dusk rested, Ridge moved for judgment as a matter of law, citing the absence of any evidence linking its staffing decisions to the loss. The court granted the motion before submission to the jury.
Sean sued Global Cargo for misclassification. After Sean rested, Global moved for judgment as a matter of law, pointing to the lack of any evidence showing control over delivery methods. The court granted the motion before the jury received the case.
A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff after the defendant had moved for judgment as a matter of law before submission. The defendant failed to renew the motion after the verdict. On appeal the defendant was barred from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
A litigant moved for judgment as a matter of law citing a judge's financial ties to the opposing party. The court denied the motion because the record contained no basis to conclude that a reasonable jury lacked sufficient evidence on the substantive claims.
A party must move under Rule 50(a) after the opponent has been fully heard but before the case is submitted to the jury and must renew the motion after the verdict under Rule 50(b). Failure to renew bars appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency.
Supporting sources
The court asks whether a reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the nonmovant on the issue. All evidence and reasonable inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
Supporting sources
Yes. Rule 50(a)(1)(B) authorizes the court to grant judgment on a claim or defense that can succeed only with a favorable finding on the issue where the evidence is legally insufficient.
Supporting sources
A JMOL motion under Rule 50(a) may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury after the party has been fully heard. A summary judgment motion under Rule 56 may be filed until thirty days after the close of discovery unless the court orders otherwise.
Supporting sources
…Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co. , 283 U. S. 494 (1931), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b)'s motion for judgment as a matter of law, see 9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2522, pp. 244-246 (2d ed. 1995). See also Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore , 439 U. S. 322, 335-337 (1979) (issue preclusion…