{{Short description|United States legal procedure}} {{Use dmy dates|date=April 2023}} {{Use American English|date=April 2023}} {{Redirect|JMOL|the chemistry software|Jmol}} {{More references|date=May 2018}} {{Civil procedure (United States)}}
In the United States courts, a motion for '''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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=motion for judgment as a matter of law |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_for_judgment_as_a_matter_of_law |access-date=2023-04-14 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en}}</ref> It asserts that the evidence allows only one result: victory for the moving party, even if a jury has found otherwise.<ref name="FLP 2021 32:3">Fundamentals of Litig. Prac. § 32:3 (2021) (updated 2022).</ref> JMOL is also known as a directed verdict, which it has replaced in American federal courts.<ref name="FLP 2021 32:3" />
JMOL is similar to judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, all of which test the factual sufficiency of a claim.<ref name="USLE">{{Cite web |title=What is the difference between judgment as a matter of law and summary judgment? {{!}} uslawessentials |url=https://uslawessentials.com/difference-judgment-matter-law-summary-judgment/ |access-date=2023-04-14 |website=uslawessentials.com}}</ref> 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.<ref name="USLE" />
In United States federal courts, JMOL is a creation of Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/cv_rules_eff._dec._1_2018_0.pdf|title=Federal Rules of Civil Procedure|date=December 1, 2018|access-date=March 7, 2020}}</ref><ref name="FRC 50">{{Cite web |title=Rule 50. Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50 |access-date=2023-04-14 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en}}</ref> JMOL is decided by the standard of whether a reasonable jury could find in favor of the party opposing the JMOL motion.<ref name="FLP 2021 32:5">Fundamentals of Litig. Prac. § 32:5 (2021) (updated 2022).</ref> 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.<ref name="FLP 2021 32:5" /> 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.<ref name="FLP 2021 32:5" />
Timing is very important in making a motion for JMOL; the motion can be made only after the opposing party has presented its case.<ref name="USLE" /> In civil cases, the plaintiff presents its case, the defendant presents its case, and the plaintiff may present a rebuttal. Therefore, once the plaintiff has presented its case, the defendant but not the plaintiff can move for JMOL. However, once the defendant has finished presenting its case, both the plaintiff and the defendant can move for JMOL.
JMOL motions may also be made after the jury has returned its verdict and are then called '''{{vanchor|renewed judgment as a matter of law}}''' (RJMOL). An RJMOL is a party's second chance at a JMOL motion, and is a motion to have that verdict altered. In U.S. federal courts this procedure has replaced judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) through Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,<ref name="FRC 50" /> and RJMOL are sometimes still called ''JNOV'' (from English: ''judgement'' and {{langx|la|non obstante veredicto}}).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Definition of non obstante veredicto |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non+obstante+veredicto |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=www.merriam-webster.com |language=en}}</ref>
Renewed JMOL can only be raised before a jury begins deliberations. Seventh Amendment due process concerns demand this formality, as decided by the United States Supreme Court in ''Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman'', 295 U.S. 654 (1935).
==See also== *New trial *No case to answer
==References== {{Reflist}}
Category:United States civil procedure Matter of law Category:American legal terminology