Judgment as a Matter of Law in Jury Trials
A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury.
Similar Mind Maps
MN RCP Rule 50. Judgment as a Matter of Law in Jury Trials; Alternative Motion for New Trial; Conditional Rulings
COMPARE & CONTRAST FEDERAL & STATE RULES;ALWAYS READ THE RULE NOTES!Rule 50. Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling
50.01 Judgment as a Matter of Law During Trial
50.01(a) Standard. If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for areasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may decide the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue.
THAT WOULD BEYOU, T.K.
IS THIS A TRIAL?
PUBLIC v. PRIVATE
WHOIS? YOUR ADVERSARY
WHOIS? YOUR ADVERSARY
CAPACITY OF JUDICIAL "OFFICER"
FULLY HEARD SHUT UP
ISSUE OF FACT
ISSUE OF LAW
POINT OF ISSUE
LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENTIARY BASIS
COMPETENT FACT EVIDENCE
SWORN WITNESS TESTIMONY
AUTHORIZED v. UNAUTHORIZEDADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC v. PRIVATECAPACITY"YOU" v. I AM
County of Vampire the peopleprivateLAWI AM
42 U.S.C. "YOU" & THE NEW DEAL
RIGHT v. BENEFIT
42 U.S.C. FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS
"YOU" IS A CONSUMER OF PRODUCTS, PROGRAMS, & SERVICES "YOU" IS ENJOYING THE BENEFITS
VAMPIRE COUNTY OF COMMERCIALCORPORATE PUBLICPOLICY"YOU"
AGENCY ISSUES, FACTS, MYTHS & LEGENDS
FEDERAL - STATE - COUNTY AGENCY
SCOPE & PURPOSE OF AGENCY; WHO IS? WHAT IS?
LIABILITY OF PRINCIPAL FOR AGENT'S CONTRACTS
50.01(b) Timing and Content. Motions for judgment as a matter of law during trial may be made at any time before submission of the case tothe jury. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to the judgment. (Amended effective January 1, 2006; amended January 9, 2006.)
RULE 56 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Rule 56 SUMMARY JUDGMENT.pdf
MN RCP 56 Summary Judgment.pdf
Rule 41. Dismissal of Actionshttp://www.xmind.net/m/pb8w/
SHALL SPECIFY THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT; WHAT DO YOU WANT
FACTS + LAW
ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT WHY YOU SHOULD HAVE IT WHY YOU MUST HAVE IT
Administrative Cases In petitions for review from administrative orders, the standard of review is essentially the same as that for an order from a civil proceeding.
IN-HOUSE RULINGS; OF, FOR, BY, & THROUGH THE HOUSE
50.02 Making or Renewing Motion for Judgment After Trial;Alternative Motion for New Trial
50.02 If, for any reason, the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made during trial, the court is considered to havesubmitted the action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. Whether or not the party has moved for judgment as a matter of law before submission of the case to the jury, a party may make or renew a request for judgment as a matter of law by serving a motion within the time specified in Rule 59 for the service of a motion for a new trial - and may alternatively request a new trial or join a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on such a motion, the court may: (Amended effective January 1, 2006; amended effective January 2, 2006.)
In ruling on such a motion, the court may: 50.02(a) if a verdict was returned: (1) allow the judgment to stand, (2) order a new trial, or (3) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law; or
JUDGMENTjudgment. 1. A court's final determination of the rights and obligations of the parties in a case. • The term judgment includes an equitable decree and any order from which an appeal lies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. — Abbr. J. — Also spelled (esp. in BrE) judgement. — Also termed (historically)judgment ex cathedra. Cf. RULING(1); OPINION(1). [Cases: Federal Civil Procedure 2391–2628; Judgment 1. C.J.S. Judgments §§ 2–3, 6, 8, 13.] 2.English law. An opinion delivered by a member of the appellate committee of the House of Lords; a Law Lord's judicial opinion. —Also termed (in sense 2) speech. “An action is instituted for the enforcement of a right or the redress of an injury. Hence ajudgment, as the culmination of the action declares the existence of the right, recognizes thecommission of the injury, or negatives the allegation of one or the other. But as no right can existwithout a correlative duty, nor any invasion of it without a corresponding obligation to makeamends, the judgment necessarily affirms, or else denies, that such a duty or such a liability restsupon the person against whom the aid of the law is invoked.” 1 Henry Campbell Black, A Treatiseon the Law of Judgments§ 1, at 2 (2d ed. 1902). Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 2464
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS declaratory judgment.A binding adjudication that establishes the rights and other legal relations of the parties without providing for or ordering enforcement. • Declaratory judgments are often sought, for example, by insurance companies in determining whether a policy covers a given insured or peril. — Also termed declaratory decree; declaration. [Cases: Declaratory Judgment 1. C.J.S. Declaratory Judgments § 1.]Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 2465
VERDICTverdict. 1. A jury's finding or decision on the factual issues of a case. [Cases: Criminal Law 870–894; Federal Civil Procedure 2191; Trial 318. C.J.S. Criminal Law §§ 1395–1414, 1500–1501, 1512, 1532, 1543; Trial§§ 818–819, 821, 846–847.] 2. Loosely, in a nonjury trial, a judge's resolution of the issues of a case. [Cases: Federal Civil Procedure 2251; Trial 387. C.J.S. Trial §§ 1067–1069, 1071–1072.]
ORDERorder,n.1. A command, direction, or instruction. See MANDATE(1).2. A written direction orcommand delivered by a court or judge. • The word generally embraces final decrees as well asinterlocutory directions or commands. — Also termed court order; judicial order. SeeMANDAMUS. [Cases: Federal Civil Procedure 928; Motions 46. C.J.S. Motions and Orders§§ 1–3, 13, 50, 59.] “An order is the mandate or determination of the court upon some subsidiary or collateralmatter arising in an action, not disposing of the merits, but adjudicating a preliminary point ordirecting some step in the proceedings.” 1 Henry Campbell Black, A Treatise on the Law ofJudgments§ 1, at 5 (2d ed. 1902). “While an order may under some circumstances amount to a judgment, they must bedistinguished, owing to the different consequences flowing from them, not only in the matter ofenforcement and appeal but in other respects, as, for instance, the time within which proceedingsto annul them must be taken. Rulings on motions are ordinarily orders rather than judgments. Theclass of judgments and of decrees formerly called interlocutory is included in the definition givenin [modern codes] of the word ‘order.’ ” 1 A.C. Freeman, A Treatise of the Law of Judgments § 19, at 28 (Edward W. Tuttle ed., 5th ed. 1925).
administrative order. 1. An order issued by a government agency after an adjudicatory hearing. [Cases: Administrative Law and Procedure 489. C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure §§ 147–148.] 2. An agency regulation that interprets or applies a statutory provision.[Cases: Administrative Law and Procedure 381. C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure §§ 87, 91.]
OPINIONopinion. 1. A court's written statement explaining its decision in a given case, usu. includingthe statement of facts, points of law, rationale, and dicta. — Abbr. op. — Also termed judicialopinion. See DECISION. Cf. JUDGMENT(1); RULING(1). [Cases: Courts 103. C.J.S. Courts §§ 170, 173–174, 176.]
advisory opinion. 1. A nonbinding statement by a court of its interpretation of the law on a matter submitted for that purpose. • Federal courts are constitutionally prohibited from issuing advisory opinions by the case-or-controversy requirement, but other courts, such as the International Court of Justice, render them routinely. See CASE-OR-CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT. [Cases: Constitutional Law 69. C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 174.] 2. A written statement, issued only by an administrator of an employee benefit plan, that interprets ERISA andapplies it to a specific factual situation. • Only the parties named in the request for the opinion can rely on it, and its reliability depends on the accuracy and completeness of all material facts.concurring opinion.See CONCURRENCE(3).
In ruling on such a motion, the court may:50.02(b) if no verdict was returned: (1) order a new trial, or (2) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law.
LEGAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE MOTION
"JUDGE" IS "JURY"
THE JUDGE IS NOT THE COURT THE RECORD IS THE COURT
A PARTY MAY MAKE OR RENEW REQUEST FOR JUDGMENT AS MATTER OF LAW
50.03 Granting Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law;Conditional Rulings; New Trial Motion
50.03(a) Conditional Rulings. If the motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted, the court shall also rule on the motion for a new trial, if any, by determining whether it should be granted if the judgment is thereafter vacated or reversed, and shall specify the grounds for granting or denying the motion for the new trial. If the motion for a new trial is thus conditionally granted, the order thereon does not affect the finality of the judgment. In case the motion for a new trial has been conditionally granted and the judgment is reversed on appeal, the new trial shall proceed unless the appellate court has otherwise ordered. In case the motion for a new trial has been conditionally denied, the respondent on appeal may assert error in that denial; and if the judgment is reversed on appeal, subsequent proceedings shall be in accordance with the order of the appellate court.
The appellant has the burden to show plain error,which is error that is clear or obvious and thatmaterially prejudices the substantial rights ofappellant; once appellant has met his burdenof persuasion, the burden shifts to thegovernment to show that the error was notprejudicial.
ERRORS INCLUDING EVIDENCE
Federal procedural rules define plain error as a highlyprejudicial error affecting substantial rights.
REVIEW OF ERROR
MINNESOTA RULESCIVIL PROCEDURE51
51.04 Assigning Error; Plain Error (a) Assigned Error. A party may assign as error: (1) an error in an instruction actually given if that party made a proper objection under Rule 51.03, or (2) a failure to give an instruction if that party made a proper request under Rule 51.01, and—unless the court made a definitive ruling on the record rejecting the request—also made a proper objection under Rule 51.03. (b) Plain Error. A court may consider a plain error in the instructions affecting substantial rights that has not been preserved as require by Rule 51.04(a)(1) or (2).
Only error affecting substantial rightsis actionable.
MINNESOTA RULESOF EVIDENCERule 103. Rulings on Evidence
(a) Effect of erroneous ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admitsor excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the partyis affected, and (1) Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence a timely objection ormotion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground ofobjection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or (2) Offer of proof. In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of theevidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparentfrom the context within which questions were asked. Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admittingor excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need notrenew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error.
(b) Record of offer and ruling. The court may add any other or further statement which shows the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made, and the ruling thereon. Upon request of any party, the court shall place its ruling on the record. The court may direct the making of an offer in question and answer form.
(c) Hearing of jury. In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means, such as making statements or offers of proof or asking questions in the hearing of the jury.
(d) Error. Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of errors in fundamental law or of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court.
ERRORS EXCLUDING EVIDENCE
Plain error is an error declared by an appellate court to bepatently obvious in a lower court decision or action andcauses a reversal. When a defendant raises an issue onappeal that was not raised before the judge, the courtof appeals may review for plain error.
To be plain error: (1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be plain (clear or obvious); and (3) the error must materially prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant).
50.03(b) Timing. Any motion for a new trial under Rule 59 by a party against whom judgment as a matter of law is rendered shall be served and heard within the times specified in Rule 59 for the service and hearing of a motion for a new trial. (Added effective January 1, 2006; amended effective January 2, 2006.)
59.03 Time for Motion
A notice of motion for a new trial shall be served within 30 days after a general verdict or service of notice by a party of the filing of the decision or order; and the motion shall be heard within 60 days after such general verdict or notice of filing, unless the time for hearing be extended by the court within the 60-day period for good cause shown.
MN RCP Rule 59. New Trials
50.04 Denial of Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
50.04 If the motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied, the party who prevailed on that motion may, as respondent on appeal, assert grounds entitling the party to a new trial in the event the appellate court concludes that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, nothing in this rule precludes it from determining that the respondent is entitled to a new trial, or from directing the trial court to determine whether a new trial shall be granted.(Added effective January 1, 2006.)
Advisory Committee Comment - 2000 AmendmentAlthough the text of this Rule 50.02 is not changed substantively by these amendments, it is worth noting that Rule 59.03, governing the time for filing a motion for a new trial is changed to expand the time from 15 days to 30 days for filing the motion and from 30 days to 60 days for having the motion heard. This amendment has the practical effect of extending the time for filing a motion under Rule 50 because Rule 50.02(c) incorporates the filing and hearing time limits of Rule 59.
Advisory Committee Comment - 2006 Amendment Rule 50 is amended in toto to adopt various changes made in1991 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50. The 1991 amendment of the federal rulewas made to remove the archaic language and procedures of directingverdicts and granting j.n.o.v. The amended rule states a standard thatthe former rule already recognized: a uniform standard for motionsmade after trial begins of a "motion for judgment as a matter of law." The purpose of the change is two-fold: to adopt names that betterdescribe the role of the motions and, because the motions essentiallyapply the same standard, to give them a common name. This change is not intended to change substantive practicerelating to these motions. The federal rule amendment in 1991 was notintended to change the actual practice under that rule. See Fed. R. Civ.P. 50(a), Advisory Comm. Notes - 1991 Amend. The federal courtshave recognized the non-substantive nature of the amendment. See 9A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERALPRACTICE & PROCEDURE section 2521, at 243 n.15 andaccompanying text (2d ed. 1995)(collecting cases).
Minnesota practice differs from federal practice in one importantrespect - former Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 did not have the express provisionof Minn. R. Civ. P. 50.02(a) allowing a motion for judgment n.o.v. tobe brought "whether or not the party has moved for a directedverdict," and the current version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 lacks equivalentlanguage with regard to motions for judgment as a matter of law. Because the amended Minnesota Rule 50.02 is not intended to changeMinnesota practice in this respect, the amended rule retains theconcept that a motion for judgment as a matter of law may be broughtafter submission of the case to the jury, whether or not such a motionwas brought before submission to the jury. The timing provisions of the federal rule have been changedslightly to accommodate Minnesota procedure including that relatingto the service and filing of post-decision motions. Like the current rule,motions under Rule 50 must be served and filed in accordance with thetiming mechanism and deadlines of Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.
4/2/13 Rule 50. - CIVIL PROCEDURE - Minnesota Court Ruleshttps://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/rule.php?name=cp-50
THIS XMind map was authorized by China Brown,EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF Lisa Stinocher O'Hanlonon 12.08.2013.
How to use my study maps:
Head over to XMind.net.
Download and install the FREE software.
Now you can download any XMind map you like from my XMind account to your own computer and use it to work your own case. Save the originals in a special folder so that you can start over if you mess up, or share them with a friend or loved one.
Please share my maps as much as possible.You can find them here:
For more AUTHORIZED mind maps visit:https://www.xmind.net/share/hennalady/