PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - RESERVATION OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT AS MEANS OF AVOIDING UNNECESSARY NEW TRIALS

Authors

Abstract

What may be done to remedy the situation if a jury brings in a verdict in favor of a party against whom a verdict should have been directed? This question becomes pertinent in view of the fact that judges, while hard pressed by counsel in the heat of trial, frequently wrongfully deny a motion for directed verdict and submit the case to the jury. One obvious remedy is the granting of a new trial by the trial judge, or by an appellate court after reversal. But this practice has proved eminently unsatisfactory, for it submits the aggrieved party to the delay, annoyance, and cost of a re-litigation which will undoubtedly end in his favor anyway if the memories of his witnesses have not become dulled by the passage of time. Furthermore, it is no untruth to say that a new trial at least offers a temptation to an unscrupulous party, defeated on the appeal, to manufacture evidence to conform with an appellate court's opinion. In addition, it clogs further already overburdened court dockets.

Recommended Citation

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - RESERVATION OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT AS MEANS OF AVOIDING UNNECESSARY NEW TRIALS, 34 Mich. L. Rev. 93 (1935).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol34/iss1/7