Neely v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co.

Background

A plaintiff (the petitioner) and the opposing party (the respondent) are disputing what should happen after a jury verdict was set aside. The Court of Appeals decided the respondent should have been granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (an order overturning the jury’s decision) and then ordered the plaintiff’s case dismissed. The plaintiff contends that this dismissal denied any opportunity to ask the trial judge for a new trial as allowed by Rule 50(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Reasoning

The core question is whether an appeals court, after deciding that a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was appropriate for the respondent, had the power to dismiss the plaintiff’s case instead of allowing the plaintiff to seek a new trial in the trial court. The Supreme Court granted review and specifically asked counsel to brief and discuss at oral argument whether the appeals court’s action complied with Rule 50 and with the Court’s prior decisions referenced in the order.

Real world impact

The Court’s review will decide a procedural rule that affects post-trial remedies. If the Court allows appeals courts to dismiss in these circumstances, plaintiffs could lose a chance to ask for a new trial. Because this order grants review and requests briefing, it is not a final ruling on the merits; the ultimate holding will depend on the forthcoming briefs and argument.