A motion for judgment as a matter of law is a request that the court decide an issue against the other side because no reasonable jury could find for them. In federal court it is made under Rule 50(a) before the case is submitted to the jury. It must be renewed under Rule 50(b) within 28 days after judgment, a deadline no court may extend, or the sufficiency issue is lost on appeal.
Directed verdict vs. judgment as a matter of law
Before 1991, federal practice had two motions: a directed verdict during trial and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV, from the Latin non obstante veredicto) after it. The amended Rule 50 folded both into "judgment as a matter of law." A 1993 amendment made clear that JMOL may be entered against both plaintiffs and defendants, and on issues or defenses that may not be wholly dispositive of a claim or defense.
| Term | Where it lives | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Directed verdict | Older federal usage; many state courts | Motion made during trial, before the jury decides |
| JMOL (pre-verdict) | Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) | The modern federal name for the same motion |
| JNOV | Older federal usage; many state courts | Motion made after the verdict |
| Renewed JMOL | Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) | The modern federal name for JNOV |
Use the Rule 50 labels in federal filings and the local labels in state court. The state table below shows why.
Step one: the Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law
A court may grant JMOL when "a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1).
Two sentences in 50(a)(2) control drafting:
- "A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury."
- "The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment."
The first means you need not wait for the close of all evidence. The 2006 amendment deleted the old requirement that the motion be made at the close of all the evidence, though the committee note says it does not discourage that practice. The safe course is to move at the close of the opponent's case and again at the close of all the evidence.
The second sentence is where motions fail. "The evidence is insufficient" is not a specification. Name the claim or defense, the element, the missing proof, and the judgment you want. Whatever you omit is lost, as step two shows.
The standard the judge applies
In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), the Court said the summary-judgment standard "mirrors" the JMOL standard, and that the court "must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." If you know the summary judgment standard, you know this one, except that the record is the evidence actually admitted, so a motion in limine ruling shapes what the judge can consider.
Circuits phrase the sufficiency test differently, so find your circuit's formulation before you draft; our guide to finding controlling authority covers how.
Step two: the renewed motion under Rule 50(b)
A 50(a) motion the court does not grant stays open. The rule treats the court as having "submitted the action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b).
The movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law "no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment" or, if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, "no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged." The renewed motion may include "an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59."
Three points decide whether a renewal survives.
The deadline cannot be extended. Rule 6(b)(2) provides: "A court must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e), and 60(b)." See our guide to calculating court deadlines for the Rule 6(a) counting rules.
It is 28 days, not 10. The 2009 amendments lengthened the post-judgment period from 10 days to 28 because a satisfactory motion often could not be prepared in 10. Older reprints of the rule still say 10, so work from the current text.
You cannot add grounds. The 2006 committee note says: "Because the Rule 50(b) motion is only a renewal of the preverdict motion, it can be granted only on grounds advanced in the preverdict motion." The renewal can narrow the 50(a) motion. It cannot widen it.
What the court may do
On a renewed motion the court may "(1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict; (2) order a new trial; or (3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law." Rule 50(b).
Step three: conditional new-trial rulings and Rule 59
If the court grants the renewed motion, Rule 50(c) requires it to "also conditionally rule on any motion for a new trial by determining whether a new trial should be granted if the judgment is later vacated or reversed," and to state its grounds. A conditional grant does not affect finality; if the judgment is reversed, the new trial proceeds unless the appellate court orders otherwise. If the new-trial motion is conditionally denied, the appellee may assert error in that denial.
The side that lost the JMOL also has a deadline. Under Rule 50(d), a party against whom JMOL is rendered must file any Rule 59 new-trial motion "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." Rule 6(b)(2) protects that deadline too.
As movant, file the Rule 59 alternative with the renewal. A timely 50(b) motion also affects your appeal clock: FRAP 4(a)(4)(A) restarts the period for listed post-judgment motions, including Rule 50(b), filed within the time the Civil Rules allow. See FRAP 4 and our notice of appeal deadline guide. The motion for reconsideration guide covers the other motions that share this non-extendable 28 days.
Preserving the issue for appeal: Unitherm, Ortiz and Dupree
Three Supreme Court cases set the rule.
Unitherm (2006). In Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006), the defendant made a Rule 50(a) motion before the verdict but filed no Rule 50(b) motion afterward and did not request a new trial under Rule 59. The Court held that "since respondent failed to renew its preverdict motion as specified in Rule 50(b), there was no basis for review of respondent's sufficiency of the evidence challenge in the Court of Appeals." The Court added that denying the 50(a) motion was not error, because a court may but need not grant JMOL before the verdict: "The only error here was counsel's failure to file a postverdict motion pursuant to Rule 50(b)."
If you want the court of appeals to review whether the evidence supported the verdict, a 50(a) motion alone is not enough.
Ortiz v. Jordan (2011). In Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (2011), the defendants lost summary judgment on a qualified-immunity defense, went to trial, lost, and filed no Rule 50(b) motion. The Court held that a party may not appeal a denial of summary judgment after the district court has conducted a full trial on the merits. The Court cited Unitherm for the point that without a Rule 50(b) motion, the appellate court is powerless to review the sufficiency of the evidence after trial. It expressly declined to decide whether a "purely legal" issue raised at summary judgment needed a Rule 50(b) motion to be preserved.
Dupree v. Younger (2023). That open question was answered in Dupree v. Younger, 598 U.S. 729 (2023). A unanimous Court, per Justice Barrett, summarized Ortiz: "an order denying summary judgment on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds is not appealable after a trial. Thus, a party who wants to preserve a sufficiency challenge for appeal must raise it anew in a post-trial motion." Then it turned to the new question, "whether this preservation requirement extends to a purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment. The answer is no."
The reasoning: a trial record supersedes the summary-judgment record, but a pure question of law is not displaced by later developments and merges into the final judgment. The Court left open whether Dupree's issue was purely legal and remanded.
Put together:
| Issue you want to raise on appeal | Rule 50(b) renewal needed? |
|---|---|
| The evidence at trial was insufficient to support the verdict | Yes (Unitherm; Ortiz; Dupree) |
| Summary judgment was wrongly denied because the facts did not support the claim | Yes: raise sufficiency again after trial (Ortiz; Dupree) |
| Summary judgment was wrongly denied on a purely legal question | No (Dupree) |
The open boundary is whether an issue is "purely legal." Dupree left that to the lower courts, so put anything arguably factual into the 50(a) and 50(b) motions anyway. Our guide to opposing summary judgment shows how fact-versus-law lines get drawn at that earlier stage.
Bench trials use Rule 52(c)
In a nonjury trial, Rule 52(c) provides that "if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a nonjury trial and the court finds against the party on that issue, the court may enter judgment against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue." Any such judgment must be supported by findings under Rule 52(a).
State labels do not map one-to-one
In state court, check the local rule; terminology and timing differ.
| State | Motion | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| California | Nonsuit: made by a defendant after the plaintiff's opening statement or presentation of evidence | CCP 581c |
| California | Directed verdict: any party, after all parties complete their evidence | CCP 630 |
| California | JNOV: after a verdict, where a directed verdict should have been granted | CCP 629 |
| Texas | Motion for instructed verdict: "shall state the specific grounds therefor" | Tex. R. Civ. P. 268 |
| Texas | Judgment non obstante veredicto "if a directed verdict would have been proper," on motion and reasonable notice | Tex. R. Civ. P. 301 (same PDF) |
Nonsuit is its own motion, limited to defendants and keyed to the plaintiff's case, so it is not simply California's word for a directed verdict. Texas pairs instructed verdict with the retained JNOV label. Post-verdict deadlines in these states differ from the federal 28 days; read the statute and rules directly.
A drafting checklist
- Move at the close of the opponent's evidence and again at the close of all evidence.
- State the claim or defense, the element, the evidence you say is missing, and the judgment sought.
- Raise every sufficiency ground you may want on appeal; the renewal cannot add one.
- Calendar the 50(b) deadline when judgment is entered: 28 days, no extension.
- Include the Rule 59 alternative in the same filing.
- Order the transcript early; the renewal is decided on it.
- Run every authority past a citation check before filing.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between a directed verdict and judgment as a matter of law?
In federal court they are the same motion under a new name. The 1991 amendments replaced "directed verdict" and "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" with "judgment as a matter of law" in Rule 50. A pre-verdict motion is made under 50(a); the post-verdict version is a renewed motion under 50(b). Many states still use the older labels.
How long do you have to file a Rule 50(b) renewed motion?
No later than 28 days after entry of judgment, or 28 days after the jury was discharged if the motion addresses an issue the verdict did not decide. Rule 6(b)(2) says a court must not extend that time, so a stipulation or a judge's extension order will not save a late motion.
Can you file a Rule 50(b) motion without a Rule 50(a) motion?
No. Rule 50(b) renews a motion already made under 50(a), and the Advisory Committee notes say the renewed motion can be granted only on grounds advanced in the pre-verdict motion. A ground you never raised before the case went to the jury is not available afterward.
Do you need a Rule 50 motion to appeal a denial of summary judgment?
It depends on the issue. After Dupree v. Younger (2023), a purely legal question resolved at summary judgment is preserved without a post-trial Rule 50 motion. A sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge is different: under Ortiz and Unitherm it must be raised again in a Rule 50(b) motion after trial.
Does Rule 50 apply in a bench trial?
No. Rule 50 governs jury trials. The nonjury counterpart is Rule 52(c), judgment on partial findings, available against a party who has been fully heard on an issue. The court must support that judgment with findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52(a).
Before you file it
A Rule 50 motion rests on your circuit's sufficiency standard and on an accurate account of Unitherm, Ortiz and Dupree. Inside a matter, CaseRead can research your circuit's standard in its public law database, with citations to the cases it relies on, and the matter's deadlines calendar can hold the 28-day renewal date. If any part of the draft came from a general-purpose AI tool, run it through the Hallucination Shield before filing. It is free, requires no signup, and checks up to 50 citations per run, flagging any it cannot verify. Our guide to cite-checking a brief covers the rest.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice. For guidance on a specific case, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.