What Is a Motion for Directed Verdict?

A motion for directed verdict asks the trial judge to enter judgment for the moving party because the trial evidence is legally insufficient for a reasonable jury to find for the opponent. In federal court it is a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a), made after the opposing party has been fully heard.

This article explains the standard a directed verdict must meet, when it can be made, and how it differs from summary judgment and from its post-verdict counterpart. The motion is a central checkpoint at trial, and understanding its narrow standard is essential for any litigator deciding whether the evidence can reach a jury at all.

What Is a Motion for Directed Verdict and When Is It Made?

A motion for directed verdict is a request for judgment during trial, made once a party has presented its evidence but before the case goes to the jury. In federal practice, the modern term is a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), and the older phrase “directed verdict” survives mainly in state courts and common usage. The motion may be brought after the plaintiff rests or at the close of all evidence, and it argues that no reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party on the record presented. The judge, not the jury, resolves it, and a grant ends that claim or issue without sending it to deliberation. Because the motion tests the sufficiency of the actual trial proof, it can only be made once the relevant evidence is in, which is why it comes at these fixed points rather than at the outset of trial.

Timing and mechanics of the motion include:

• It is typically made orally on the record after the opposing party has been fully heard on an issue.
• A defendant often moves at the close of the plaintiff’s case, arguing the plaintiff failed to prove an essential element.
• Either party may move at the close of all evidence.
• The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to it, as Rule 50(a)(2) requires.

What Is the Legal Standard for a Directed Verdict?

The standard is whether a reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the nonmoving party. The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, draws all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor, and does not weigh credibility or resolve conflicts in the testimony. A directed verdict is proper only when the evidence points so strongly one way that reasonable minds could not differ. This most often arises when the party bearing the burden of proof has failed to introduce evidence on an essential element of the claim or defense, leaving a gap no reasonable jury could fill. Because it takes a case from the jury, courts apply the standard cautiously and resolve genuine doubts in favor of letting the jury decide.

Key features of the standard include:

• Evidence is construed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
• The court does not assess witness credibility or reweigh competing evidence.
• The motion is granted only when no legally sufficient basis supports a verdict for the opponent.
• The inquiry mirrors the standard used for summary judgment, but applied to the trial record rather than the paper record.

How Does a Directed Verdict Differ From Summary Judgment?

A directed verdict and summary judgment apply the same legal sufficiency standard at different stages of the case. A motion for summary judgment is decided before trial on affidavits, deposition testimony and other discovery materials, asking whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact requiring a trial. A directed verdict is decided during trial, after the evidence has actually been presented to the jury and asks whether that live record is legally sufficient. Both keep insufficient claims from a jury, but they operate on different records and at different moments.

How Does a Directed Verdict Differ From a JNOV?

A directed verdict is made before the jury decides, while a JNOV is the same motion renewed after the jury returns an adverse verdict. Under Rule 50, the two are procedurally linked: a party must first move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) during trial to preserve the right to renew it under Rule 50(b) after the verdict. The renewed motion, historically called judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), lets the judge override a verdict unsupported by legally sufficient evidence. Skipping the Rule 50(a) motion generally forfeits the post-verdict challenge.

The relationship between the two motions works as follows:

1. A party moves for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) before the case is submitted to the jury.
2. If the court denies or defers the motion, the case goes to the jury for a verdict.
3. After an unfavorable verdict, the party renews the motion under Rule 50(b), and the court may let the verdict stand, order a new trial or direct entry of judgment for the movant.

Conclusion

A motion for directed verdict — a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) in federal court — asks the judge to take a case from the jury when the evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict for the opponent. It shares its demanding standard with summary judgment but is decided on the live trial record, and it must be made before submission to preserve a later JNOV under Rule 50(b). Because the phrasing and procedure vary between federal and state courts, practitioners should confirm the governing rule and preservation requirements in their forum before trial.

Frequently Asked Questions