|
Renewed JMOL
In the United States courts, renewed judgment as a matter of law is a party's second chance at a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) motion. Renewed JMOL is decided after a jury has returned its verdict, and is a motion to have that verdict altered. In US federal courts this procedure has replaced judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) through Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The same standards as JMOL apply. The difference is that renewed JMOL can only be raised if JMOL had been raised before the jury began deliberations. Seventh Amendment due process concerns demand this formality, as decided by the United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ... in ''Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman'', 295 U.S. 654 (1935). Judgme ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judgment As A Matter Of Law
A motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a Motion (legal), motion made by a party, during trial, claiming the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. JMOL is also known as a directed verdict, which it has replaced in Federal judiciary of the United States, American federal courts. JMOL is similar to judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, all of which test the factual sufficiency of a Claim (law), claim. Judgment on the pleadings is a motion made after Pleading (United States), pleading and before discovery (law), discovery; summary judgment happens after discovery and before trial; JMOL occurs during trial. In United States federal courts, JMOL is a creation of Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. JMOL 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 enter ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also called judgment ''non obstante veredicto'', or JNOV, is a type of judgment as a matter of law that is sometimes rendered at the conclusion of a jury trial. In U.S. federal civil court cases, the term has been replaced by the renewed judgment as a matter of law, which emphasizes its relationship to the judgment as a matter of law, formerly called a directed verdict. In U.S. federal criminal cases, the term is "judgment of acquittal". In American courts, JNOV is the practice whereby the presiding judge in a civil jury trial may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict. In literal terms, the judge enters a judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict. The rarely-granted intervention permits the judge to exercise discretion to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions. A judge may not enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases. Such an action would violate a defendant's Fifth ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (officially abbreviated Fed. R. Civ. P.; colloquially FRCP) govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the FRCP. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body. Although federal courts are required to apply the substantive law of the states as rules of decision in cases where state law is in question, the federal courts almost always use the FRCP as their rules of civil procedure. States may determine their own rules, which apply in state courts, although 35 of the 50 states have adopted rules that are based on the FRCP. History The Rules, established in 1938, replaced the earlier procedures und ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Seventh Amendment To The United States Constitution
The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact. An early version of the Seventh Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress proposed a revised version of the Seventh Amendment to the states on September 28, 1789, and by December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified it. The Seventh Amendment is generally considered one of the more straightforward amendments of the Bill of Rights. While the Seventh Amendment's provision for jury trials in civil cases has never been incorporated (applied to the states), almost every state has a provision for jury trials in civil cases in its constitution. The prohibition of overturning a jury's finding ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
United States Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point of federal law. It also has original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, specifically "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party." The court holds the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution. It is also able to strike down presidential directives for violating either the Constitution or statutory law. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The court may decide cases having political overtones, but has ruled that it does not have power to decide non-justiciable political questions. Established by Article Three of the United States C ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judgment (law)
In law, a judgment, also spelled judgement, is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.''Black’s Law Dictionary'' 970 (10th ed. 2014). The phrase "reasons for judgment" is often used interchangeably with "judgment," although the former refers to the court's justification of its judgment while the latter refers to the final court order regarding the rights and liabilities of the parties. As the main legal systems of the world recognize either a common law, statutory, or constitutional duty to provide reasons for judgment, drawing a distinction between "judgment" and "reasons for judgment" may be unnecessary in most circumstances. Spelling Judgment is considered a "free variation" word, and the use of either ''judgment'' or ''judgement'' (with an e) is considered acceptable. This variation arises depend ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
