Minks v. Polaris Indus., Inc., D.C.Fla.2007, 2007 WL 1452906,
quoting Wright &Miller.See also
Henning v. Union Pacific R. Co., 530 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2008) (district courtimproperly applied Rule 50 standard to motion for new trial under Rule 59).
Coons v. Industrial Knife Co., Inc., 620 F.3d 38, 41 (1st Cir. 2010) (Rule 59(e) motioncould be construed as Rule 50(b) motion since it contained all information required for Rule 50(b) motion), citing Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 732 (7th Cir. 1998).3
Question of law
See § 2524 n. 1.
Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Incorporated, D.C.N.Y.2000, 93 F.Supp.2d 449, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 2001, 262 F.3d 101. Nadel v. Isaksson, D.C.N.Y.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 378, vacated on other grounds C.A.2d,2003, 321 F.3d 266.4
May not weigh evidence
See § 2524 n. 10.Fine v. Sovereign Bank, 671 F. Supp. 2d 219, 224 (D. Mass. 2009).Douglas Asphalt Co. v. Qore, Inc., 2010 WL 2089255, *2 (S.D. Ga. 2010).
In reviewing a district court's decision on a Rule 50(b) motion for a new trial, the court of appeals must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing at trial,and draw all reasonable inferences in his or her favor. BBA Nonwovens Simpsonville,Inc. v. Superior Nonwovens, LLC, C.A.Fed., 2002, 303 F.3d 1332.When a district court is considering a new trial motion on the grounds that the verdict isagainst the great weight of the evidence, the court is entitled to interpret the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses for itself. Simco v. Ellis, C.A.8th, 2002, 303 F.3d 929.Moran v. Clarke, C.A.8th, 2002, 296 F.3d 638.Kelly v. Armstrong, C.A.8th, 2000, 206 F.3d 794.Watkins v. Professional Sec. Bureau, Ltd., C.A.4th, 1999, 201 F.3d 439, opinion at 1999WL 1032614 (per curiam), certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 1961, 529 U.S. 1108, 146 L.Ed.2d793.Fount-Wip, Inc. v. Reddi-Wip, Inc., C.A.9th, 1978, 568 F.2d 1296,
citing Wright &Miller.
Unlike on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court, when considering a motionfor a new trial, need not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdictwinner. MLMC, Ltd. v. Airtouch Communications, Inc., D.C.Del.2002, 215 F.Supp.2d464,
quoting Wright & Miller.
Edwards v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2002, 205 F.Supp.2d 3.Asa-Brandt, Inc. v. Farmers Co-Op. Soc., D.C.Iowa 2002, 2002 WL 1714197.Whiteside Biomechanics, Inc. v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc., D.C.Mo.2000, 88F.Supp.2d 1009.McClary v. Coughlin, D.C.N.Y.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 205.