Civil Procedure—Sufficiency of Evidence Not Reviewable in Absence of Post-Verdict Judgment as a Matter of Law or New Trial Motion—Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were enacted in 1938 to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”  The Federal Rules provide three avenues for challenging the sufficiency of a party’s evidence presented at trial:  a Rule 50(a) pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), a Rule 50(b) post-verdict renewed motion for JMOL, and a Rule 59 motion for a new trial.  In Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., the United States Supreme Court considered whether a party may challenge the sufficiency of evidence on appeal where the party lost on a pre-verdict motion for JMOL, but neither renewed that motion nor moved for a new trial after the verdict.  The Court held that a party’s failure to make either post-verdict motion in the district court precluded appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence. . . .