Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Neely v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1967 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureJNOVJMOLappellate powerSeventh AmendmentRule 50(b)Rule 50(c)Rule 50(d)

Facts

Petitioner brought a diversity wrongful-death action alleging that respondent's negligent construction, maintenance, and supervision of a scaffold platform caused her father's fatal fall. At trial, respondent moved for a directed verdict at the close of petitioner's evidence and again at the close of all the evidence, but both motions were denied and the jury returned a $25,000 verdict for petitioner. Respondent then filed a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively for a new trial, which the district court denied. On appeal, the court of appeals held the evidence insufficient to establish negligence or proximate cause and reversed with instructions to dismiss the action.

Issue

After a district court denies a defendant's Rule 50(b) motion and a court of appeals concludes that the evidence was insufficient to support the plaintiff's verdict, may the court of appeals itself direct dismissal or entry of judgment for the defendant consistently with Rule 50 and the Seventh Amendment? More specifically, do Rule 50(d), Rule 50(c)(2), or prior Supreme Court cases forbid that disposition?

Rule

When a verdict loser has properly preserved and filed a Rule 50(b) motion, a court of appeals that reverses the denial of that motion may, consistent with the Seventh Amendment and 28 U.S.C. § 2106, direct entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict or dismissal in appropriate cases. Rule 50(d) preserves the appellee's opportunity to assert grounds for a new trial if the verdict is set aside on appeal, but it does not impose an inflexible requirement that every such case be remanded to the district court; remand is required where unresolved new-trial issues should more appropriately be addressed by the trial court.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal diversity negligence action in Phoenix, Dana Ortiz won a jury verdict against Red Mesa Logistics. At trial, Red Mesa moved for a directed verdict at the close of Dana's case and again at the close of all evidence, then timely filed a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively for a new trial; the district court denied both motions. On appeal, the court concludes the evidence was legally insufficient, and Dana never argues for a new trial in her appellate brief or by rehearing petition.

What is the best statement of the court of appeals' authority?

Explanation. When the verdict loser properly preserved the issue with directed-verdict motions and a timely Rule 50(b) motion, a court of appeals that finds the evidence insufficient may, consistent with the Seventh Amendment and 28 U.S.C. § 2106, direct entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict or dismissal in appropriate cases. Rule 50(d) preserves the appellee's opportunity to request a new trial, but does not impose an automatic remand requirement where the appellee raises no such issue and the record discloses no unresolved matter better left to the trial court. (Derived from Neely v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co. (1967).)