Ads
related to: motions for divorce after judgment is made
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A "motion for judgment n.o.v." (non obstante veredicto, or notwithstanding the verdict) asks the court to reverse the jury's verdict on the grounds that the jury could not reasonably have reached such a verdict. This motion is made after the jury's verdict. If granted, the court enters a new verdict.
In law, a motion to set aside judgment is an application to overturn or set aside a court's judgment, verdict or other final ruling in a case. [1] [2] Such a motion is proposed by a party who is dissatisfied with the result of a case. Motions may be made at any time after entry of judgment, and in some circumstances years after the case has ...
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. [1] It asserts that the evidence allows only one result: victory for the moving party, even if a jury has found otherwise. [2]
Importantly, to keep open the option of moving for a "judgment notwithstanding the verdict", or "judgment non obstante verdicto" after the jury has returned a verdict, one must file a Rule 50(a) motion. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the two are not separate motions, the JNOV motion is simply a renewed Rule 50(a) motion.
Other pretrial motions, such as a "motion for judgment on the pleadings" or a "motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted", can be converted by the judge to summary-judgment motions if matters outside the pleadings are presented to – and not excluded by – the trial-court judge.
Michigan law, Mich. Ct. R. 3.211(B)(3) (1998) directs that a judgment of divorce must include a determination of the parties' property rights. The New Jersey Supreme Court , in Frankel v. Frankel, 274 N.J. Super. 585, 644 A.2d 1132 (App. Div. 1994) , prohibits bifurcation except in the most unusual and extenuating circumstances.
While the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require no judicial permission and impose no intervention deadline, common law dictates that a party may not intervene post-judgment unless the trial court first sets aside the judgment. [8] For the same reason, an intervenor must enter the lawsuit before final judgment to have standing to bring an appeal.
When the courts were merged by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, provision was made for the procedure to governed by rules of court. The 1875 rules provided for non suiting but also made provision for setting aside a judgment of nonsuit. In 1883 the nonsuit provisions were repealed and replaced by discontinuance of an action.