Also known as: matter of law
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A judicial determination by the court on an issue that the law assigns exclusively to the judge rather than the jury.
Antonio Alvarado sued Aether Technologies after a workplace accident. At the close of his case, Aether moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court granted the motion because no reasonable jury could find causation on the record presented.
Alexandra Armstrong bought goods under a contract with Arcadia Retail containing a harsh arbitration clause. The court found the clause unconscionable at formation and refused to enforce it.
Audrey Ashton sued a news outlet for false light after a substantially true report. The court held the claim failed because the reporting was protected and could not support liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Adam Anderson completed his evidence in a contract trial. Before the case went to the jury, he moved for judgment as a matter of law and specified the supporting facts and law.
Austin Abbott sued Ashford Manufacturing. After discovery, Ashford moved for summary judgment and showed no genuine dispute of material fact on any element of the claim.
Andrew Avery sued Basic Inc. for securities fraud. The district court ruled that the alleged misstatements were immaterial and granted summary judgment for the defendants.
A court may grant the motion when a party has been fully heard on an issue and no reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for that party.
The court decides unconscionability as a matter of law after giving the parties an opportunity to present evidence on commercial setting, purpose, and effect.
The party is barred on appeal from arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict.
No. The claim fails as a matter of law because false light cannot circumvent constitutional protections for substantially true speech or protected opinion.
…announced by the Supreme Court. Our review here is, of course, very narrow: We will affirm the summary judgment only if, as a matter of law, the proffered evidence would have to be excluded at trial. The district court's power is far broader; were we to conclude that the expert testimony is not per se inadmissible, the district…