Also known as: motions for judgment · motion for judgment on the pleadings · MJ
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural device by which a party in a jury trial requests the court to enter judgment in its favor because the opposing party has failed to produce evidence legally sufficient for a reasonable jury to find for that party on a claim or defense. The motion may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury and must specify the judgment sought along with the supporting law and facts.
Marco Marquez sued Marathon Logistics for breach of contract after a shipment arrived late. At the close of Marco's case the judge found no evidence that the delay caused any compensable loss. The court granted Marathon's motion for judgment as a matter of law because Marco had not produced evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find damages.
Miles Montgomery sued Metro Bank for wrongful termination. After both sides rested but before the jury received the case, Metro moved for judgment as a matter of law. The motion listed the missing element of causation and the supporting testimony. The court considered the motion because it was made before the case went to the jury.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Marcus Mitchell was tried for fraud. Before the case was submitted to the jury the evidence showed only ambiguous billing records and no proof of intent. The court granted Marcus's motion for judgment as a matter of law because no rational juror could find every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mohan Malhotra bought a car from Meridian Motors that later malfunctioned. Meridian moved for judgment after the plaintiff's evidence because it believed the proof of defect was weak. The court denied the motion because the circumstances raised a jury question on whether the car was defective when sold.
Mustafa Mahmoud sued Matrix Technologies alleging a conspiracy. Before the case went to the jury Matrix moved for judgment as a matter of law arguing the evidence lacked factual detail on agreement. The court denied the motion because the testimony gave a legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for the plaintiff.
Miguel Mendoza was prosecuted for drug possession. Before the case was submitted to the jury the judge instructed on a statutory presumption linking presence in a car to possession. Miguel moved for judgment as a matter of law arguing the presumption violated due process. The court denied the motion because the presumption was rational on the facts presented.
A party may move at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to relief. The court may grant the motion if a reasonable jury would lack a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the opposing party.
The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and asks whether a rational jury could find for that party. The court does not weigh credibility or resolve factual disputes. If the evidence is legally insufficient the court must grant the motion.
Yes. An acquittal on the ground that the evidence is legally insufficient is a final determination on the merits that precludes reprosecution for the same offense. The bar applies even if the later charge is rephrased or brought under a different label.
No. The judge must assume the jury credited the evidence supporting the verdict. Reweighing credibility and entering judgment contrary to a supportable verdict violates the right to jury trial. The proper remedy is a new trial if the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.
…as to the happening of the accident was not sufficient to demonstrate a breach of warranty. Consequently, they claim that their motion for judgment should have been granted by the trial court. We cannot agree. In our view, the total effect of the circumstances shown from purchase to accident is adequate to raise an inference that the…