Also known as: judgment as a matter of law · judgment notwithstanding the verdict · JNOV · JMOL
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A court order that resolves a claim or defense during or after a jury trial when the opposing party has failed to present legally sufficient evidence on an issue. The order removes the issue from the jury and enters judgment for the moving party under the controlling law.
June Jiang sued Jacobs Shipping after a delivery truck struck her vehicle. At trial Jiang testified about the collision and introduced photos of the scene but offered no evidence that the driver failed to maintain a proper lookout. After Jiang rested, Jacobs Shipping moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court granted the motion because the record contained no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find negligence.
Jennifer Jackson sued Jordan Dynamics for breach of a supply contract and sought consequential damages. After both parties rested, Jordan Dynamics moved for judgment as a matter of law on the damages issue. Jackson had introduced only a handwritten chart listing projected losses without supporting records. The court granted the motion because no reasonable jury could award damages on that evidence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Javier Jimenez sued Jones Petroleum for unpaid invoices under a service agreement. At trial Jimenez testified about the services rendered but offered no evidence that written notices had been sent as required by the contract. After Jimenez rested, Jones Petroleum moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court granted the motion because the record contained no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find that notice had been given.
Jasmine Jordan sued Jiang Textiles for wrongful termination and obtained a jury verdict on lost wages. Jiang Textiles renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing the evidence on damages remained speculative. The court denied the motion, allowing the verdict to stand because the testimony supplied a legally sufficient basis for the award.
John Jones sued Jonathan Jaffe and others alleging a conspiracy to interfere with his employment. At trial Jones testified about his termination but offered only speculation about any agreement among the defendants. After Jones rested, the defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court granted the motion because the record contained no facts from which a reasonable jury could infer the required meeting of the minds.
Jacobs Shipping sued Jordan Dynamics in federal court despite a contractual forum selection clause designating another district. At trial Jacobs Shipping presented evidence of the contract but offered nothing to show the clause was unenforceable. After Jacobs Shipping rested, Jordan Dynamics moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court granted the motion and transferred the case because the clause was enforceable under federal law.
A party may move at any time before the case is submitted to the jury once the opposing party has been fully heard on the issue. The motion must identify the judgment sought and the supporting law and facts.
Supporting sources
The court grants the motion when the record supplies no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party on the issue. Speculative or conclusory evidence is insufficient.
Supporting sources
No. The rule permits the motion once the opposing party has rested and been fully heard, even if the movant has not yet presented evidence.
Supporting sources
Judgment as a matter of law occurs during or after a jury trial and tests the sufficiency of evidence actually admitted. Summary judgment occurs before trial and tests whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists on the pleadings and discovery record.
Supporting sources
The party is barred on appeal from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, whether seeking judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.
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…