Difference between revisions of "Unitherm Food Sys. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc."
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(bad link repair) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
In '''''Unitherm Food Sys. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.''''', 546 U.S. 394 (2006), a 7-2 [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a failure to file a motion for a [[directed verdict]] based on insufficiency of the evidence must prevent an appellate court from considering that argument: | In '''''Unitherm Food Sys. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.''''', 546 U.S. 394 (2006), a 7-2 [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a failure to file a motion for a [[directed verdict]] based on insufficiency of the evidence must prevent an appellate court from considering that argument: | ||
| Line 11: | Line 5: | ||
Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] wrote the opinion for the Court, and Justices [[Anthony Kennedy]] and [[John Paul Stevens]] dissented. | Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] wrote the opinion for the Court, and Justices [[Anthony Kennedy]] and [[John Paul Stevens]] dissented. | ||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 02:29, September 2, 2011
In Unitherm Food Sys. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006), a 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court held that a failure to file a motion for a directed verdict based on insufficiency of the evidence must prevent an appellate court from considering that argument:
- Ordinarily, a party in a civil jury trial that believes the evidence is legally insufficient to support an adverse jury verdict will seek a judgment as a matter of law by filing a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) before submission of the case to the jury, and then (if the Rule 50(a) motion is not granted and the jury subsequently decides against that party) a motion pursuant to Rule 50(b). In this case, however, the respondent filed a Rule 50(a) motion before the verdict, but did not file a Rule 50(b) motion after the verdict. Nor did respondent request a new trial under Rule 59. The Court of Appeals nevertheless proceeded to review the sufficiency of the evidence and, upon a finding that the evidence was insufficient, remanded the case for a new trial. Because our cases addressing the requirements of Rule 50 compel a contrary result, we reverse.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the Court, and Justices Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens dissented.