Also known as: matters of law · question of law
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A judicial inquiry into the applicable legal rules or standards rather than the truth of disputed facts.
Marco Marquez and Mariam Mansour filed a single action against a common defendant alleging harm from the same product defect. The court examined whether any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs would arise in the action. Because the shared legal standard governing the defect claim satisfied the requirement, joinder was permitted.
Melanie Morris signed a consumer contract containing an arbitration clause with one-sided terms. The court reviewed the clause's commercial setting and purpose. Finding the clause unconscionable at formation, the court refused enforcement of that provision alone.
Maya Malik sued a news outlet for false light after a report accurately summarized her public statements. The court assessed whether the claim rested on substantially true reporting or protected opinion. The claim failed because the reporting triggered constitutional protections.
Mina Mehta presented her case at trial but offered no evidence on an essential element of her claim. The defendant moved before submission to the jury and identified the missing element and controlling legal standard. The court granted the motion and entered judgment for the defendant.
Mason McCarthy sued Millennium Media alleging breach but produced no evidence creating a genuine dispute on an essential element. The defendant moved for summary judgment and showed the absence of any triable fact. The court granted the motion because the movant was entitled to judgment under the governing legal standard.
Metro Bank offered expert testimony linking a manufacturing process to the plaintiff's injury. The court evaluated whether the methodology satisfied the legal reliability requirements. Finding the testimony inadmissible under the governing standard, the court excluded the evidence and entered judgment for the defendant.
Two minors brought suit against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, claiming they suffered limb reduction birth defects because their mothers had taken Bendectin, a drug prescribed for morning sickness to about 17.5 million pregnant women in the United States between 1957 and 1982. Limb reduction defects occur in fewer than one birth out of every 1000. Scientists do not know the mechanism by which any teratogen causes such defects. The plaintiffs offered testimony from three groups of experts. One group proposed to testify to a statistical link between Bendectin ingestion during pregnancy and limb reduction defects based on reanalyses of published studies that had reported no such association. A second group proposed to testify that Bendectin causes limb reduction defects in humans because it causes such defects in laboratory animals. A third group proposed to testify based on the similarity of Bendectin's chemical structure to other drugs suspected of causing birth defects. The district court granted summary judgment to Merrell Dow after excluding the plaintiffs' expert testimony. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed, and remanded for consideration under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. On remand, the Ninth Circuit examined the affidavits and prior trial testimony of the plaintiffs' experts. None of the experts had studied the effect of Bendectin on limb reduction defects before being hired to testify in this or related cases. None had published his work on Bendectin in a scientific journal. The only review their work had received was by judges and juries. Plaintiffs' epidemiological experts made vague assertions of a statistically significant relationship between Bendectin and birth defects but did not state that the relative risk exceeded two. With the exception of Dr. Palmer, the remaining experts were willing to testify only that Bendectin is capable of causing birth defects. Dr. Palmer alone was willing to testify that Bendectin did cause the limb defects in each of the children, based on his review of the plaintiffs' medical records and his conclusion that Bendectin is a teratogen.
View caseA court may decide an issue as a matter of law when the evidence supplies no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party on that issue. This occurs on a motion for judgment as a matter of law after a party has been fully heard and before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts supporting it.
A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time after a party has been fully heard on an issue and before the case is submitted to the jury. Summary judgment occurs before trial and tests whether the record shows a genuine dispute of material fact. Once trial begins the proper device shifts to judgment as a matter of law.
The movant must identify each claim or defense on which summary judgment is sought and demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. The movant must also show entitlement to judgment under the controlling legal standard. The court then grants the motion if those requirements are met.
…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…