Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Judgment As Matter Of Law

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Judgment As Matter Of LawQuestion 1 of 20

A consumer brought a strict products liability claim against a lawnmower manufacturer after he was injured. At trial in federal court, the consumer presented evidence that the lawnmower lacked a safety guard that was standard on newer models. The manufacturer's expert testified that at the time the lawnmower was made, its design was state-of-the-art and complied with all industry and government standards. At the close of all evidence, the manufacturer moved for judgment as a matter of law.

On which issue does the manufacturer have the strongest argument that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the consumer? Select one.

Causation, because the consumer did not prove the safety guard would have prevented his specific injury.

Damages, because the consumer's testimony about his pain and suffering was not supported by medical records.

Defect, because evidence of compliance with industry standards at the time of manufacture can defeat a design defect claim.

Duty, because a manufacturer does not have a duty to retrofit products with safety features developed after the sale.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Judgment As Matter Of Law

Practice Judgment As Matter Of Law in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Judgment As Matter Of Law, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

On which issue does the manufacturer have the strongest argument that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the consumer? Select one.

Causation, because the consumer did not prove the safety guard would have prevented his specific injury.
Damages, because the consumer's testimony about his pain and suffering was not supported by medical records.
Defect, because evidence of compliance with industry standards at the time of manufacture can defeat a design defect claim. (correct answer)
Duty, because a manufacturer does not have a duty to retrofit products with safety features developed after the sale.

Explanation: This question tests the application of the JMOL standard to a substantive law claim. The correct answer is C. In many jurisdictions, evidence that a product's design complied with the state-of-the-art and industry standards at the time of manufacture is strong, and sometimes conclusive, evidence that it was not defective. While a jury could find otherwise, the JMOL motion challenges whether a reasonable jury could do so. Given the manufacturer's expert testimony, this is the element where the consumer's case is weakest as a matter of law. A court might conclude that without countervailing expert testimony on the standards at the time of manufacture, the consumer's evidence is legally insufficient. (A) is a plausible argument, but the causal link between a missing guard and an injury is often a jury question. (B) is incorrect because a plaintiff's own testimony can be sufficient evidence of damages. (D) is incorrect because the claim is based on the product's condition at the time of sale, not a post-sale duty to retrofit, making this argument less relevant to the core issue of defect.

Question 2

A plaintiff sued a city in federal court, alleging that a municipal ordinance was unconstitutional. The case went to a jury trial. At the close of all evidence, the city moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court denied the motion. The jury then returned a verdict for the plaintiff, finding the ordinance unconstitutional. The city filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.

What is the most likely basis on which the court could grant the city's renewed motion? Select one.

The court concludes that the jury misapplied the law to the facts presented at trial.
The court believes the city's witnesses were more credible than the plaintiff's witnesses.
The court finds that the plaintiff's evidence, while credible, was not persuasive enough to meet the burden of proof.
The court determines that, as a matter of law, the ordinance is constitutional, regardless of the facts found by the jury. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), remember that this is a question of law for the judge, not a factual determination. A renewed JMOL can only be granted when no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict it did based on the evidence presented. The correct answer is D because constitutional questions are ultimately matters of law that courts must decide. Even if a jury finds an ordinance unconstitutional, the judge has the authority and responsibility to determine the correct legal interpretation of constitutional principles. If the court concludes that the ordinance is constitutional as a matter of law, it can grant the renewed JMOL regardless of what facts the jury found, because the legal conclusion doesn't depend on disputed factual findings. Answer A is wrong because JMOL isn't about jury misapplication of law to facts—that would be addressed through jury instructions or potentially a new trial motion. Answer B is incorrect because credibility determinations are exclusively within the jury's province; judges cannot grant JMOL based on their own credibility assessments. Answer C misunderstands the standard—if evidence was credible, the question becomes whether it was legally sufficient, and judges can't substitute their judgment about persuasiveness for the jury's factual findings. The key distinction here is between questions of fact (for juries) and questions of law (for judges). Constitutional interpretation falls squarely in the latter category, making JMOL an appropriate remedy when the court disagrees with the jury's legal conclusion about constitutionality.

Question 3

In a federal jury trial, the plaintiff, who bears the burden of proof, presents overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence on every element of his claim. The defendant, in its defense, does not present any evidence to refute the plaintiff's case. At the close of all evidence, the plaintiff moves for judgment as a matter of law.

How is the court most likely to rule on the plaintiff's motion? Select one.

Deny the motion, because JMOL is only available to defendants or parties who do not bear the burden of proof.
Deny the motion, because the credibility of the plaintiff's witnesses, even if uncontradicted, is for the jury to determine.
Grant the motion, because the defendant failed to present evidence creating a factual dispute for the jury to resolve. (correct answer)
Grant the motion, but only on the issue of liability, leaving the determination of damages to the jury.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Although it is rare, a party with the burden of proof can be granted JMOL. This occurs when the party has presented overwhelming evidence on every element of its claim and the opposing party has failed to introduce evidence that would create a factual issue for the jury. If the defendant offers no rebuttal to the plaintiff's strong case, a reasonable jury could only find for the plaintiff, making JMOL appropriate. (A) is incorrect because JMOL is available to any party. (B) is a strong argument and often correct, but in the rare case where the plaintiff's evidence is truly overwhelming, uncontradicted, and does not depend on the credibility of interested witnesses, JMOL may be granted. (D) might be the outcome in some cases, but if the evidence on damages is also uncontradicted and certain (e.g., a liquidated sum in a contract), JMOL can be granted on the entire claim.

Question 4

An investor sued a financial advisor in federal court for fraud. The investor's case rested on proving that the advisor made a specific false statement on a specific date. The only evidence presented by the investor on this point was his own testimony. The advisor denied making the statement. At the close of evidence, the advisor moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court denied the motion, and the jury found for the investor. The advisor now appeals the denial of his JMOL motion.

What is the appellate court's most likely ruling? Select one.

Affirm, because the conflicting testimony of the investor and the advisor created a credibility issue for the jury to resolve. (correct answer)
Reverse, because a fraud claim must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, which the investor's sole testimony cannot satisfy.
Reverse, because the investor's self-serving testimony is not legally sufficient without corroborating evidence.
Affirm, but only if the advisor's testimony was impeached or otherwise shown to be unreliable during the trial.

Explanation: When you encounter questions about judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on appeal, focus on the standard of review: appellate courts ask whether a reasonable jury could have reached the verdict based on the evidence presented, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In fraud cases, while the standard of proof is typically clear and convincing evidence, the sufficiency of evidence to meet that standard is generally a question for the jury when there's conflicting testimony. Here, you have direct conflicting testimony between the investor and advisor about whether a specific statement was made. This creates a classic credibility determination that juries are uniquely positioned to resolve. The appellate court will affirm because reasonable jurors could have believed the investor's testimony over the advisor's denial. Answer B is incorrect because while fraud does require clear and convincing evidence, a single witness's testimony can satisfy this standard if the jury finds it credible and convincing. The standard refers to the degree of certainty required, not the quantity of witnesses needed. Answer C misapplies the law by suggesting self-serving testimony requires corroboration. While self-serving testimony may be given less weight, it's not legally insufficient as a matter of law when contradicted by opposing testimony. Answer D incorrectly suggests the advisor's testimony must be impeached for the investor to prevail. Juries can simply choose to believe one witness over another without formal impeachment. Study tip: Remember that JMOL appeals focus on legal sufficiency, not credibility. When there's conflicting testimony creating genuine factual disputes, appellate courts typically defer to jury verdicts rather than second-guess credibility determinations.

Question 5

What is the most likely basis on which the court could grant the city's renewed motion? Select one.

The court concludes that the jury misapplied the law to the facts presented at trial.
The court believes the city's witnesses were more credible than the plaintiff's witnesses.
The court finds that the plaintiff's evidence, while credible, was not persuasive enough to meet the burden of proof.
The court determines that, as a matter of law, the ordinance is constitutional, regardless of the facts found by the jury. (correct answer)

Question 6

In a federal court trial, a defendant properly moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff's case and again at the close of all evidence. The court denied both motions. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant then timely filed a renewed motion for JMOL and an alternative motion for a new trial. The trial judge denied the renewed motion for JMOL because she believed there was a legally sufficient basis for the verdict. However, the judge personally disagreed with the verdict and believed it was against the great weight of the evidence.

What should the judge do with the alternative motion for a new trial? Select one.

She may grant it, because the standard for a new trial is less stringent than the standard for JMOL. (correct answer)
She must deny it, because denying the JMOL motion means the jury's verdict was reasonable.
She must deny it, because a judge's personal disagreement with a verdict is not a valid basis for a new trial.
She may grant it only if she also finds that there was a prejudicial error in the conduct of the trial.

Explanation: When you encounter post-trial motions like judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and motions for new trial, remember that these have different standards and purposes. JMOL challenges the legal sufficiency of evidence, while a new trial motion addresses whether the verdict is against the weight of evidence. The judge correctly applied the JMOL standard, finding legally sufficient evidence to support the verdict - meaning a reasonable jury could reach this conclusion based on the evidence presented. However, she can still grant a new trial under the less demanding standard that asks whether the verdict is against the great weight of evidence, even when the evidence is legally sufficient. Answer A is correct because new trial motions do use a less stringent standard than JMOL. While JMOL requires that no reasonable jury could find for the prevailing party, a new trial can be granted when the judge believes the verdict is against the weight of evidence, even if some evidence supports it. Answer B is wrong because denying JMOL doesn't preclude granting a new trial - these motions serve different purposes with different standards. Answer C incorrectly characterizes the judge's assessment as mere "personal disagreement" when it's actually a judicial evaluation of whether the verdict aligns with the weight of evidence, which is a proper basis for new trial. Answer D is incorrect because prejudicial trial error is just one ground for new trial; verdicts against the weight of evidence provide an independent basis. Remember: JMOL asks "could any reasonable jury reach this verdict?" while new trial asks "should this jury have reached this verdict?"

Question 7

A homeowner sued a contractor in federal court for breach of contract, alleging faulty construction of a deck. At trial, after the homeowner presented all of his evidence, the contractor's attorney stood up and stated, 'Your Honor, the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof. We move for judgment as a matter of law.' The attorney did not elaborate further. The judge denied the motion. The case proceeded, and the jury found in favor of the homeowner. The contractor then filed a renewed motion for JMOL, arguing specifically that the homeowner failed to present any evidence of damages, a required element of a breach of contract claim.

How should the court rule on the contractor's renewed motion for JMOL? Select one.

Grant the motion, if the court agrees that the homeowner failed to present evidence of damages.
Deny the motion, because a renewed motion for JMOL cannot be based on grounds not specifically raised in the pre-verdict motion. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, because the initial denial of the motion before the verdict became the law of the case.
Grant the motion, because the court is free to consider any legal insufficiency in the evidence when ruling on a post-verdict motion.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. FRCP 50(a) requires that a motion for judgment as a matter of law must 'specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.' A renewed motion under FRCP 50(b) may be granted only on grounds that were advanced in the pre-verdict motion. The contractor's initial motion was a generic statement that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden, which is generally considered insufficient to preserve a specific argument for a renewed motion. Because the contractor did not specifically argue the lack of damages evidence in the initial motion, that argument is waived and cannot be the basis for the renewed motion. (A) is incorrect because even if the argument has merit, it was not properly preserved. (C) is incorrect because the 'law of the case' doctrine does not prevent a court from reconsidering an issue in a renewed JMOL. (D) is incorrect because the court is limited to the grounds asserted in the original motion.

Question 8

A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court. After a full jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff was surprised by the verdict, believing the evidence overwhelmingly supported his claim. The plaintiff's attorney had not made any motions for judgment as a matter of law during the trial. The plaintiff now wishes to challenge the verdict as being against the weight of the evidence.

What motion, if any, may the plaintiff properly file to challenge the verdict in the trial court? Select one.

A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b).
A motion for a new trial under Rule 59. (correct answer)
Both a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial.
No motion, because the jury's verdict is final and can only be challenged on appeal.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The plaintiff cannot file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under FRCP 50(b) because he failed to move for JMOL under FRCP 50(a) before the case was submitted to the jury. However, this failure does not prevent the plaintiff from filing a motion for a new trial under FRCP 59 on the grounds that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. The standards are different: JMOL requires a legally insufficient evidentiary basis, while a new trial may be granted if the judge believes the jury's verdict is a serious error of judgment, even if some evidence supports it. (A) and (C) are incorrect because the prerequisite for a renewed JMOL was not met. (D) is incorrect because a party can challenge a verdict in the trial court via post-trial motions like a motion for a new trial.

Question 9

What should the judge do with the alternative motion for a new trial? Select one.

She may grant it, because the standard for a new trial is less stringent than the standard for JMOL. (correct answer)
She must deny it, because denying the JMOL motion means the jury's verdict was reasonable.
She must deny it, because a judge's personal disagreement with a verdict is not a valid basis for a new trial.
She may grant it only if she also finds that there was a prejudicial error in the conduct of the trial.

Question 10

You are representing a defendant corporation in a lawsuit filed by a former executive alleging age discrimination. At the conclusion of a three-week jury trial in federal court, the jury returns a verdict in favor of the executive for $2 million. You believe the executive presented no legally sufficient evidence that his age was the but-for cause of his termination. You prudently made a motion for JMOL at the close of the executive's case and again at the close of all evidence.

What is the next procedural step you must take in the trial court to preserve your client's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence? Select one.

File a notice of appeal with the district court clerk within 30 days of the entry of judgment.
File a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law within 28 days of the entry of judgment. (correct answer)
File a motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of the previous JMOL motions.
File a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) based on the insufficiency of the evidence.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. To challenge a jury verdict for insufficiency of the evidence after the verdict has been rendered, a party must file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under FRCP 50(b). This motion must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. Making the pre-verdict motions preserved the right to make this post-verdict motion. (A) is incorrect because while an appeal is the ultimate step, the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must first be presented to the trial court in a Rule 50(b) motion to be preserved for appeal. (C) is a generic motion and not the specific procedural tool required by Rule 50. (D) is incorrect because Rule 60(b) is for relief from judgment based on specific grounds like mistake, new evidence, or fraud, not for a general challenge to the sufficiency of the trial evidence.

Question 11

You are representing a bicyclist who was injured in a collision with a car. The bicyclist sued the driver in federal court. At the jury trial, the bicyclist testified that the driver ran a red light. An independent eyewitness testified that the light was green for the driver. Both parties have rested their cases. The driver's attorney has now moved for judgment as a matter of law.

What is your client's best response to the driver's motion? Select one.

Argue that the motion should be denied because the court cannot make credibility determinations between conflicting testimony. (correct answer)
Argue that the motion should be denied because the eyewitness testimony is biased and should be disregarded.
Argue that the motion should be granted in your client's favor because the driver's testimony is self-serving.
Argue that the motion is premature because the jury has not yet had a chance to deliberate on the evidence.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The standard for judgment as a matter of law requires the court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (here, the bicyclist) and to draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. The court may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Because the bicyclist's testimony that the light was red directly conflicts with the eyewitness's testimony, there is a classic question of fact and credibility for the jury to resolve. A reasonable jury could choose to believe the bicyclist over the eyewitness. (B) is incorrect because arguing about witness bias is for the jury; for a JMOL motion, the court must assume the testimony of the non-movant's witness is credible. (C) is incorrect because the bicyclist cannot move for JMOL when there is conflicting evidence on a key issue. (D) is incorrect because a JMOL motion is properly made after a party has been fully heard and before the case is submitted to the jury.

Question 12

A plaintiff sued a manufacturer for injuries caused by a defective product. The case was tried in federal court before a jury. After the plaintiff presented her case, the manufacturer moved for JMOL, which the judge denied. After the manufacturer presented its defense, it renewed its motion for JMOL. The judge denied the motion again and submitted the case to the jury, which returned a verdict of $1 million for the plaintiff. The manufacturer filed a renewed motion for JMOL and, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial. The judge is convinced that no reasonable jury could have found for the plaintiff based on the evidence, but is also convinced that, if the first motion is reversed on appeal, the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.

What is the proper action for the judge to take? Select one.

Grant the motion for JMOL and dismiss the alternative motion for a new trial as moot.
Deny the motion for JMOL but grant the motion for a new trial, as that is the less drastic remedy.
Grant the motion for JMOL and conditionally rule on the motion for a new trial. (correct answer)
Grant the motion for a new trial and deny the motion for JMOL as moot.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Under FRCP 50(c), when a court grants a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, it must also conditionally rule on any motion for a new trial. This is for the sake of judicial efficiency. If the appellate court reverses the grant of JMOL, the conditional ruling on the new trial motion will then take effect, avoiding a remand for the trial court to rule on it. Here, since the judge believes JMOL is appropriate, she should grant it. She must then also rule on the alternative motion for a new trial. (A) is incorrect because the court must conditionally rule on the new trial motion. (B) is incorrect because if the standard for JMOL (no legally sufficient evidence) is met, the court should grant it rather than the new trial motion. (D) is incorrect because if the court grants a new trial, it must also rule on the JMOL motion.

Question 13

A plaintiff sued a defendant for negligence in federal court. The defendant moved for summary judgment before trial, arguing there was no evidence of causation. The court denied summary judgment, finding a genuine dispute of material fact. At trial, the plaintiff presented the exact same evidence on causation as she had in her summary judgment opposition. After the plaintiff rested her case, the defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, making the same argument about the lack of causation evidence.

How should the court rule on the defendant's JMOL motion? Select one.

Deny the motion, because the denial of summary judgment on the same issue establishes it as the law of the case.
Grant the motion, because the standard for JMOL is more stringent than the standard for summary judgment.
Evaluate the motion under the JMOL standard, which may produce a different result than summary judgment even on the same evidence. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, because a party is not permitted to re-litigate issues that were decided at the summary judgment stage.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The court must evaluate the JMOL motion on its own merits under the Rule 50 standard. Although the legal standard for summary judgment and JMOL is very similar ('genuine dispute of material fact' vs. 'legally sufficient evidentiary basis'), a court is not bound by its prior summary judgment ruling. The trial judge may have a different view of the evidence after seeing it presented live by witnesses. Therefore, the court should re-evaluate the evidence under the JMOL standard. (A) and (D) are incorrect because the denial of summary judgment is interlocutory and does not constitute the 'law of the case' in a way that would prevent a later JMOL. A judge can change their mind. (B) is incorrect; the standards are generally considered functionally the same, though applied at different stages of litigation.

Question 14

A patient sued a surgeon in federal court for medical malpractice, alleging that the surgeon negligently severed a nerve during a routine appendectomy, causing permanent leg weakness. At the jury trial, the patient's only evidence on the standard of care and its breach was the testimony of a general practitioner, who stated that nerve damage is a known risk of the surgery but that it is not supposed to happen. The general practitioner admitted on cross-examination that he was not a surgeon and had not performed an appendectomy in 20 years. After the patient rested her case, the surgeon properly moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). The court denied the motion. The surgeon then presented expert testimony from a board-certified surgeon who stated that the defendant's actions complied with the applicable standard of care.

The surgeon has renewed the motion for JMOL at the close of all evidence. How should the court rule on the motion? Select one.

Deny the motion, because the patient's general practitioner provided some evidence of negligence, creating a question of fact for the jury.
Deny the motion, because the conflicting expert testimony on the standard of care must be resolved by the jury.
Grant the motion, because the court may now weigh the credibility of the competing experts and find the defendant's expert more credible.
Grant the motion, because the patient failed to present legally sufficient evidence of the applicable surgical standard of care and its breach. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. To prevail on a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must typically present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care and the defendant's breach of that standard. The patient's only expert, a general practitioner with no recent surgical experience, was likely not qualified to testify on the specific standard of care for a surgeon performing an appendectomy. Thus, the patient failed to provide a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for her on the element of breach. A JMOL is appropriate when a party has been fully heard on an issue and a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient basis to find for that party. (A) is incorrect because the testimony, while 'some evidence,' was not legally sufficient to establish the specific standard of care. (B) is incorrect because there was no legally sufficient conflicting testimony; the patient's expert was not qualified to create a genuine conflict. (C) is incorrect because in ruling on a JMOL motion, the court does not weigh credibility; it must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The basis for granting the motion is the legal insufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence, not a credibility determination.

Question 15

In a federal civil rights trial, a plaintiff sued a police officer for using excessive force. At the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, the officer's attorney made a motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to prove the officer acted under color of state law. The judge denied the motion. The officer then testified in her defense. At the close of all evidence, the officer's attorney did not renew the motion for JMOL. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Twenty days after the entry of judgment, the officer filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.

What is the most likely reason the court will deny the officer's post-verdict motion? Select one.

The motion is untimely because it was filed more than 14 days after the entry of judgment.
The motion is improper because the officer waived her right to file it by failing to renew the motion at the close of all evidence. (correct answer)
The motion is meritless because the jury's verdict is supported by sufficient evidence presented during the trial.
The motion is procedurally barred because the initial motion was denied by the court before the verdict.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Under FRCP 50, to preserve the right to file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law after a jury verdict, a party must have moved for JMOL before the case was submitted to the jury. While the officer made a motion at the close of the plaintiff's case, she failed to renew it at the close of all evidence. A party who fails to move for JMOL at the close of all evidence is generally held to have waived the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence after the verdict, including through a renewed JMOL motion. (A) is incorrect because under FRCP 50(b), a renewed motion for JMOL must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. (C) addresses the merits, but the motion will be denied on procedural grounds before the merits are even considered. (D) is incorrect; the denial of the initial motion is a prerequisite for, not a bar to, a renewed motion.

Question 16

What motion, if any, may the plaintiff properly file to challenge the verdict in the trial court? Select one.

A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b).
A motion for a new trial under Rule 59. (correct answer)
Both a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial.
No motion, because the jury's verdict is final and can only be challenged on appeal.

Question 17

In a negligence action in federal court, the defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff's case. The judge stated, 'I have serious doubts about the plaintiff's evidence on causation, but I will take the motion under advisement and let this go to the jury.' The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant then timely filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Which of the following is true regarding the court's handling of the motions? Select one.

The court's failure to rule definitively on the initial motion renders the renewed motion improper.
The court acted properly, as deferring a ruling on a JMOL motion is a common and permissible practice. (correct answer)
The defendant was required to object to the court's deferral to preserve the issue for the renewed motion.
By taking the motion under advisement, the court effectively denied it, so the renewed motion is barred.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. It is common and permissible for a trial judge to defer ruling on a motion for JMOL made at the close of the plaintiff's case or at the close of all evidence. Judges often prefer to let the case go to the jury. If the jury returns a verdict for the moving party, the motion becomes moot. If the jury returns a verdict for the non-moving party, the judge can then rule on the motion (now as a renewed JMOL) and, if it is granted, the appellate court will have a jury verdict to reinstate if the JMOL is reversed, avoiding the need for a completely new trial. (A) is incorrect because deferring a ruling is not the same as failing to rule; the motion is preserved. (C) is incorrect because no objection is required. (D) is incorrect because taking a motion under advisement is not a denial and does not bar a renewed motion; it preserves the issue for later consideration.

Question 18

A plaintiff sued for breach of an oral contract in federal court. At trial, the plaintiff testified about the terms of the agreement. The defendant, in its case-in-chief, presented three witnesses who all testified that the alleged conversation never happened. At the close of all evidence, the defendant's attorney moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the plaintiff's uncorroborated testimony was overwhelmed by the defendant's three witnesses and thus was not legally sufficient.

What is the proper ruling on the defendant's motion? Select one.

Grant the motion, because a 3-to-1 witness count against the plaintiff means no reasonable jury could find for him.
Grant the motion, because uncorroborated testimony is insufficient as a matter of law to prove an oral contract.
Deny the motion, because the testimony of a single witness can constitute a legally sufficient evidentiary basis. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, but only if the plaintiff can provide a reason why the defendant's witnesses should not be believed.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The testimony of a single witness, even if that witness is the plaintiff, is generally sufficient to create a jury question and defeat a motion for JMOL. The court's role is not to weigh the evidence or count the number of witnesses on each side. A reasonable jury could choose to believe the plaintiff and disbelieve the defendant's three witnesses. Therefore, there is a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the plaintiff's claim. (A) is incorrect because the court does not decide the case based on the number of witnesses. (B) is incorrect as there is no general rule that uncorroborated testimony is legally insufficient. (D) is incorrect because the plaintiff does not bear a burden of disproving the movant's witnesses to survive a JMOL motion; the court must simply credit the non-movant's evidence.

Question 19

What is the next procedural step you must take in the trial court to preserve your client's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence? Select one.

File a notice of appeal with the district court clerk within 30 days of the entry of judgment.
File a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law within 28 days of the entry of judgment. (correct answer)
File a motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of the previous JMOL motions.
File a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) based on the insufficiency of the evidence.

Question 20

What is the appellate court's most likely ruling? Select one.

Affirm, because the conflicting testimony of the investor and the advisor created a credibility issue for the jury to resolve. (correct answer)
Reverse, because a fraud claim must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, which the investor's sole testimony cannot satisfy.
Reverse, because the investor's self-serving testimony is not legally sufficient without corroborating evidence.
Affirm, but only if the advisor's testimony was impeached or otherwise shown to be unreliable during the trial.