ty....pickleman773
Global Moderator
CMKM Vs. Glenn Update-Judgment as a matter of law
« Thread Started Yesterday at 5:20pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Found this posted on the court website today:
08/26/2011 Certificate of Service
Certificate of Service
08/26/2011 Appendix
Appendix of Out-of-State Cases Referenced in Defendants Donald Roger Glenn and Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
08/26/2011 Motion for Judgment
Defendants Donald Roger Glenn and Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
So I looked up exactly what his motion is and found out it is critical for the defendant to present this motion RIGHT AFTER the Plaintiff presents it's case. We now know CMKM has at least presented it's case and it's now Glenn's team turn.
Here is what I found on the motion:
Judgment as a matter of lawFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Civil procedure in the United States
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Doctrines of civil procedure
Jurisdiction Subject-matter jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction
Removal jurisdiction
Venue Change of venue
Forum non conveniens
Pleadings and motions Service of process
Complaint Cause of action
Case Information Statement
Class action Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
Demurrer
Answer Affirmative defense
Reply
Counterclaim
Crossclaim
Joinder Indispensable party
Impleader
Interpleader
Intervention
Pre-trial procedure Discovery
Initial Conference
Interrogatories
Depositions
Request for Admissions
Request for production
Resolution without trial Default judgment
Summary judgment
Voluntary dismissal
Involuntary dismissal
Settlement
Trial Parties Plaintiff
Defendant
Pro Se
Jury Voir dire
Burden of proof
Judgment Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL)
Renewed JMOL (JNOV)
Motion to set aside judgment
New trial
Remedy Injunction
Damages
Attorney's fees American rule
English rule
Declaratory judgment
Appeal Mandamus
Certiorari
Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party, during trial, claiming the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. JMOL is also known as a directed verdict, which it has replaced in American Federal courts.
JMOL is similar to judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, all of which test the factual sufficiency of a claim. Judgment on the pleadings is a motion made after pleading and before discovery; summary judgment happens after discovery and before trial; JMOL occurs during trial.
In United States federal courts, JMOL is a creation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 50. JMOL is decided by the standard of whether a reasonable jury could find in favor of the party opposing the JMOL motion. If there is no evidence to support a reasonable conclusion for the opposing party, judgment is entered by the court and the case is over. If there is sufficient evidence to make a reasonable conclusion in favor of the opposing party, but there is equally strong evidence to support an opposite conclusion, the party with the burden of persuasion fails.
Timing is very important in making a motion for JMOL; the motion can only be made once the opposing party has presented its case. In civil cases, the plaintiff presents her case, then the defendant presents his/her case, then the plaintiff may present a rebuttal. So, once the plaintiff has presented his/her case, the defendant may move for JMOL, but the plaintiff may not. Once the defendant has finished presenting his/her case, the plaintiff may move for JMOL, and so may the defendant.
JMOL motions may also be made after the verdict is returned, where they are called "renewed" motions for judgment as a matter of law (RJMOL), but the motion is still commonly known by its former name, judgment notwithstanding verdict, or j.n.o.v. (from the English judgment and the Latin non obstante veredicto). However, in order to move for j.n.o.v., the movant must have moved for a JMOL before the verdict as well. This procedural quirk is necessary because it is considered a violation of the 7th amendment for a judge to overturn a jury verdict. Instead, the judge is said in a j.n.o.v. to be reexamining not the verdict, but his previous rejection of JMOL.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_as_a_matter_of_law « Last Edit: Yesterday at 5:21pm by pickleman773 »
Interesting!!!!!