Civil Procedure Multistate Bar Practice Exam

What is the basis for a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law?

1. Judgment is clearly in favor of the plaintiff

2. No reasonable jury could find for the opposition

3. The case lacks sufficient evidence

4. Evidence has been improperly admitted

The correct answer is: No reasonable jury could find for the opposition

A Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is grounded in the assertion that no reasonable jury could arrive at a decision favoring the opposing party based on the evidence presented. This type of motion is typically made during a trial, after the opposing party has presented their evidence, but before the case goes to the jury for deliberation. The key notion here is that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, does not support a finding for that party; thus, a reasonable jury would have no choice but to rule in favor of the moving party. This principle stems from the standard set in cases like *Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.*, where the court emphasized that a judgment as a matter of law should be granted if there is a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict reached by the jury. The focus here is on the sufficiency of the evidence in relation to the reasonable verdict a jury might explore, making the possibility of a favorable finding for the opposing party exceedingly remote. In contrast, other options describing judgments related to the evidence or procedural aspects do not directly align with the criteria needed for such a motion. For instance, merely asserting that the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff does not address the necessity of