discussing rule that a “party must test the sufficiency of the evidence by motions” under Rule 50 and “not by a motion for new trial.”
How later courts described this case
- discussing rule that a “party must test the sufficiency of the evidence by motions” under Rule 50 and “not by a motion for new trial.”
- deciding if a remittitur was proper on a cáse-by-case basis and- reviewing the proof and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the appellee
- deciding if a remittitur was proper on a case-by-case basis and reviewing the proof and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the appellee
- upholding loss of consortium award in wrongful-death suit
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. It does not appear that we have done anything to clarify this court’s cases dealing with motions for directed verdict, judgment NOV, and new trial. What seems apparent to me is the courts have mixed what standards a trial judge employs when considering these procedural motions and the standards this court uses when it reviews these matters on appeal. Because I agree with the result reached in this case, I simply concur and ask our Civil Practice Committee to address this area of procedural confusion and offer its insight as to a solution.