A motion for directed verdict is a motion by a party asking the trial judge to issue a ruling after determining that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable
Pleading is one of the first stages of a lawsuit. In a pleading, the parties formally submit their claims and the defenses against the opposition’s claims. The parties can make specific pleas, such as a guilty plea or a not guilty plea.
Res judicata is a Latin phase that translates to “a matter judged.” It is the principle that a cause of action may not be relitigated once there has been a final judgment on the merits.
A summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party without a full trial.
In civil cases, either party may make a pre-trial motion for summary judgment.
A temporary restraining order (TRO) is a short-term pre-trial temporary injunction. To obtain a TRO, a party must convince the judge that they will suffer immediate irreparable injury unless the order is issued.
Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure empowers a judge to determine an issue himself, rather than submitting it to the jury, when the evidence is insufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude to the contrary. When the judge's determination of the particular issue makes it impossible for the losing party to prevail in its overall claim or defense, the judge will enter a "judgment as a matter of law" against the party. Because such a judgment deprives the losing party of its constitutional right to a jury trial, the rules governing the exercise of Rule 50(a) power are very important. This case addresses a significant question about these rules: may a court of appeal review the sufficiency of evidence presented at trial, when a party loses a pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a), but then fails to renew the motion under Rule 50(b) after the jury has reached a verdict? The Supreme Court's resolution will greatly impact the speed and quality of review of trial court decisions by courts of appeal, as well as the power these courts possess to overturn improper verdicts.
Whether, and to what extent, a court of appeals may review the sufficiency of evidence supporting a civil verdict where the party requesting review made a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before submitting the case to the jury, but neither renewed that motion under Rule 50(b) after the jury's verdict nor moved for a new trial under Rule 59?
Unitherm Food Systems ("Unitherm"), a manufacturer and supplier of food processing machinery, sued Swift-Eckrich, doing business as ConAgra Refrigerated Foods ("ConAgra"), for defrauding the Patent Office, misrepresenting itself to Unitherm, improperly interfering with Unitherm's prospective business relations, and monopolistic practices in violation of
Does Rule 60(b) permit plaintiffs to reopen suits that they voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41?
This case asks the Supreme Court to determine if courts may relieve a party under Rule 60(b) from a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Waetzig contends that the language “final judgment, order, or proceeding” in Rule 60(b) includes a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice because it is a step in a proceeding that terminates the case. Halliburton Energy Services counters that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is neither a proceeding nor final because the plaintiff preserves the right to refile suit. The outcome of this case affects federal courts’ ability to grant Rule 60(b) relief to plaintiffs who dismissed their case because of a mistake or fraud.
Whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
In February 2020, Gary Waetzig sued Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Halliburton”), his former employer, for violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Waetzig v.
The authors would like to thank Professor Alexandra Lahav for her insights into this case.
