libterm.com A motion for directed verdict is filed by a party during a trial, requesting the judge to decide the case in their favor because the opposing party has failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claim. This legal tool aims to prevent unnecessary deliberation when facts are clear and no reasonable jury could find otherwise. Discover how understanding the motion for directed verdict can impact Your legal strategy by reading the full article.
Table of Comparison
| Aspect | Motion for Directed Verdict | Summary Judgment Motion |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Judicial decision made during trial to direct a verdict without jury deliberation. | Pre-trial request to rule in favor without a trial based on undisputed facts. |
| Timing | Made after the opposing party has presented evidence at trial. | Filed before trial, after discovery is complete. |
| Purpose | Eliminate need for jury decision when evidence is insufficient. | Resolve case or issue when no genuine dispute of material fact exists. |
| Legal Standard | Evidence viewed in favor of opposing party; no reasonable jury could find for that party. | No genuine issue of material fact; moving party entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
| Applicable Cases | Civil trials with jury. | Civil and some criminal cases before trial. |
| Outcome | Directs jury to return a specific verdict. | Dismisses claims or defenses without trial. |
| Authority | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 50. | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56. |
Introduction to Motions: Directed Verdict vs Summary Judgment
A Motion for Directed Verdict is filed during trial when a party believes no reasonable jury could find for the opposing side based on the evidence presented, aiming to resolve the case without jury deliberation. A Summary Judgment Motion is filed before trial, requesting the court to rule in favor of the movant because there are no genuine disputes of material fact requiring a trial. Both motions seek to avoid unnecessary trials but differ in timing and procedural context within civil litigation.
Definition of a Motion for Directed Verdict
A Motion for Directed Verdict is a request made during a trial, typically after the opposing party has presented their evidence, asking the judge to rule in favor of the moving party because the evidence is legally insufficient to support a reasonable jury verdict for the opposition. This motion challenges the factual basis of the opponent's case, asserting there is no genuine issue for trial. It differs from a Summary Judgment Motion, which is filed before trial to resolve claims without a trial when there are no material facts in dispute.
Definition of a Motion for Summary Judgment
A Motion for Summary Judgment is a legal request made by a party in a case asserting that there are no genuine disputes of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This motion aims to expedite the resolution of a case without a trial when evidence clearly supports one party's claim or defense. Unlike a Motion for Directed Verdict, which is made during trial, a Motion for Summary Judgment occurs before trial.
Legal Standards for Each Motion
A Motion for Directed Verdict requires the judge to find that no reasonable jury could legally find for the opposing party based on the evidence presented at trial, effectively resolving the case before jury deliberation. In contrast, a Summary Judgment Motion is granted when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, typically decided after discovery but before trial. Both motions hinge on the absence of factual controversy but differ in timing and procedural context within civil litigation.
Procedural Timing and When Each Motion is Filed
A Motion for Directed Verdict is filed during trial after the plaintiff or prosecutor has presented their case but before the defense presents evidence, challenging the sufficiency of the opposing party's evidence. In contrast, a Summary Judgment Motion is submitted before trial, typically after discovery, asserting that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The procedural timing distinguishes these motions, with Directed Verdict addressing evidentiary insufficiency mid-trial, while Summary Judgment seeks to resolve the case without trial based on undisputed facts.
Burdens of Proof: Comparison and Contrast
A Motion for Directed Verdict requires the plaintiff to have failed to meet their burden of proof during the trial, allowing the judge to decide the case without jury deliberation based on insufficient evidence presented. In contrast, a Summary Judgment Motion demands that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, with the burden on the movant to demonstrate the absence of factual issues. Both motions shift the burden of proof differently: directed verdicts focus on the inability to prove claims at trial, while summary judgment motions address the lack of factual disputes before trial.
Purposes and Strategic Uses in Litigation
A Motion for Directed Verdict aims to resolve a case during trial by arguing that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party based on the evidence presented, effectively seeking judgment as a matter of law. A Summary Judgment Motion is filed before trial to establish that there are no genuine disputes of material fact, allowing the court to decide the case without proceeding to trial. Strategically, Directed Verdicts are used to challenge insufficient evidence after trial has begun, while Summary Judgment Motions streamline litigation by potentially avoiding unnecessary trials through pre-trial adjudication.
Key Differences Between Directed Verdict and Summary Judgment
A Motion for Directed Verdict is filed during trial, asking the judge to rule in favor of one party because the opposing party has insufficient evidence to prove their case. Summary Judgment Motion occurs before trial, requesting a ruling based on undisputed facts showing no genuine issue for trial. The key difference lies in timing and evidence evaluation: directed verdict evaluates evidence after presentation at trial, while summary judgment relies on evidence submitted in pleadings and affidavits before trial.
Notable Case Examples Illustrating Each Motion
In *Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth*, the Supreme Court addressed a motion for directed verdict by emphasizing the standard that a reasonable jury could only find for one party, illustrating how courts evaluate evidence sufficiency at trial's end. Conversely, *Celotex Corp. v. Catrett* serves as a landmark summary judgment case, where the Court clarified that the moving party must demonstrate the absence of any genuine dispute of material fact, enabling judgment without trial. These cases highlight critical judicial standards that differentiate motions for directed verdict and summary judgment in civil litigation.
Conclusion: Choosing the Right Motion for Your Case
Selecting the appropriate motion depends on the stage and facts of the case: a Motion for Directed Verdict targets issues during trial after the opposing party's presentation, asserting insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to rule otherwise, while a Summary Judgment Motion is filed pre-trial when there are no genuine disputes of material fact, seeking judgment as a matter of law. Legal practitioners should analyze the evidentiary record's completeness and timing constraints, recognizing that a directed verdict typically occurs post-trial while summary judgment streamlines cases before trial. Strategic use of these motions can conserve resources and enhance case outcomes by resolving dispositive issues efficiently.
Motion for Directed Verdict Infographic
