|
Authored by: hardmath on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 11:55 PM EDT |
IANAL (no surprise there!), but I think the right word might be to vacate the jury's verdict
(or judgement).
--- "Prolog is an efficient programming language
because it is a very stupid theorem prover." -- Richard O'Keefe [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 03:18 AM EDT |
I think hardmath is right: a judge can indeed "vacate" a jury finding, but only
under the most extenuating of circumstance. We saw SCO request such at the
denouement of SCO v Novel. Judge Stewart
informs
us:
The Tenth Circuit has made it clear that judgment as a
matter of law is to be "cautiously and sparingly granted,"*7 and is only
appropriate when there is no way to legally justify a jury verdict. Judgment as
a matter of law is appropriate only "[i]f there is no legally sufficient
evidentiary basis . . . with respect to a claim or defense . . . under the
controlling law,"*8 or if "the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to
no reasonable inferences which may support the opposing party's position."*9
"Judgment as a matter of law is improper unless the evidence so overwhelmingly
favors the moving party as to permit no other rational
conclusion."*10
--- Real Programmers mangle their own memory. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|