Florida Standard of Review for Appeal of Relocation
Moving for a Directed Verdict and, then, a Motion to Ready Bated the Verdict
Moving for a directed verdict is a standard procedure in a jury trial. Simply put, after the plaintiff puts on its case-in-chief (bear witness supporting its claims against the defendant), the accused moves for a directed verdict stating that fifty-fifty assuming all of the prove is true and undisputed, and all inferences relating to that prove favor the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to bear witness its case equally a affair of law and a jury cannot reasonably enter a verdict in favor of the plaintiff based on that bear witness. Meet Wald v. Grainger, 64 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 2011); see also Etheredge 5. Walt Disney Earth Co., 999 So.2d 669, 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) ("In other words, a motion for directed verdict shall be granted merely if no view of the evidence could back up a verdict for the non-moving political party and that the trial court therefore determines that no reasonable jury could render a verdict for that party.")
This is all-time explained by the Florida Supreme Court:
"A party moving for a directed verdict admits the truth of all facts in prove and every reasonable conclusion or inference which tin can be drawn from such evidence favorable to the non-moving party. A directed verdict is proper when the show and all inferences from the evidence, considered in the lite most favorable to the not-moving party [plaintiff or party putting on testify in support of their claim], support the movant's case as a matter of law and there is no evidence to rebut it."
Wald, 64 So.3d at 1205 (Fla. 2011) (citations omitted).
A accused may move for a directed verdict after the plaintiff puts on all of its evidence. A plaintiff can move for a directed verdict afterwards the defendant puts on all of its show every bit to an affirmative defense force. And, a plaintiff (referred to as a counter-accused) can motion for a directed verdict subsequently the defendant (referred to as a counter-plaintiff) puts on all of its evidence if the defendant has counter-sued the plaintiff.
A party moves for a directed verdict in accordance with Florida's Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.480. If the motion for directed verdict is denied, which is not uncommon, the trial continues. Only, and this is a very, very of import just:
"When a move for a directed verdict is denied or for whatsoever reason is not granted, the court is deemed to accept submitted the action to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal questions raised by the motion. Within 15 days after the return of a verdict, a party who has timely moved for a directed verdict may serve a motility to set aside the verdict and any judgment entered thereon and to enter judgment in accordance with the movement for a directed verdict [also commonly referred to every bit a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict] . If a verdict was not returned, a party who has timely moved for a directed verdict may serve a movement for judgment in accord with the motion for a directed verdict within fifteen days after discharge of the jury."
Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.480(b). This means that if a party moves for a directed verdict and that motility is denied, the trial continues and will be submitted to the jury to render a verdict. If the verdict favors a party (e.1000., plaintiff), the opposing political party (east.chiliad., accused) within 15 days can file a move for the court to set bated the verdict and enter a judgment in accordance with the earlier movement for directed verdict.This is important because if a political party does Not timely move for the court to set aside the verdict and enter judgment in accord with the directed verdict, the party volition Non have properly preserved the directed verdict for appeal. See Murray v. State, 27 Then.3d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (defense failed to timely preserve directed verdict for entreatment because it did not motility the courtroom to set aside the verdict and enter judgment in accordance with the directed verdict).
(Notably, information technology used to exist that a party needed to renew a motion for a directed verdict at the decision of the trial—shut of all of the evidence. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure ane.480 was amended in 2010 removing the requirement to renew a motion for directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence in social club to preserve the right to file a motility to set bated the verdict. At present, a party just needs to timely movement for a directed verdict at the close of the opposing party'southward show and and so timely file the motion to prepare aside the verdict.)
Oftentimes, a party at the determination of a trial will move the court to fix aside the verdict and enter judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdict or, alternatively, move the court for a new trial. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.480(b). Hence, if the court is considering granting a motion for directed verdict, it may deny the motion to see how the jury decides the evidence. If the jury still finds in favor of a party, the judge can (if a party timely moves for a judgment non withstanding the verdict) still enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The standard of appellate review if a trial court grants a directed verdict is de novo. Encounter Merritt v. OLMHP, LLC, 112 Then.3d 559 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2013). This is the same standard of review if a trial court grants a motion to set aside the verdict and enter judgment in accordance with the motion for direct verdict (again, besides called a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict). Meet Specialty Marine & Industrial Supplies, Inc. v. Venus, 66 So.3d 306 (Fla. ist DCA 2011).
Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if y'all have questions or would like more than information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.
Please follow and like us:
waltonbarrispinks.blogspot.com
Source: https://provemyfloridacase.com/moving-directed-verdict-motion-set-aside-verdict/