decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Nullify might not be the right word | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Nullify might not be the right word
Authored by: hardmath on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 11:55 PM EDT

IANAL (no surprise there!), but I think the right word might be to vacate the jury's verdict (or judgement).

---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem prover." -- Richard O'Keefe

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Could the judge simply nullify the verdict?
Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 03:18 AM EDT
I think hardmath is right: a judge can indeed "vacate" a jury finding, but only under the most extenuating of circumstance. We saw SCO request such at the denouement of SCO v Novel. Judge Stewart informs us:
The Tenth Circuit has made it clear that judgment as a matter of law is to be "cautiously and sparingly granted,"*7 and is only appropriate when there is no way to legally justify a jury verdict. Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only "[i]f there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis . . . with respect to a claim or defense . . . under the controlling law,"*8 or if "the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences which may support the opposing party's position."*9 "Judgment as a matter of law is improper unless the evidence so overwhelmingly favors the moving party as to permit no other rational conclusion."*10

---
Real Programmers mangle their own memory.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )