Cooper Tire V. Mendez

308 Words2 Pages
Q: The Texas high court held that the expert testimony relied upon the plaintiffs to establish their case was not reliable. Why did the court not order a new trial? After the cases have been presented, but before the case goes to the jury, a party may request that the court enter a judgment and it’s favor because there is not legally sufficient evidence on which a jury cannot find for the other party. The defense is more likely to prevail on such motion. That is, the judge holds that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient grounds, even what is claim is true, to be able to win a verdict. After a jury returns a verdict, the losing party may make a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a motion for judgment now withstanding the verdict. The judge is asked to hold that there were not legally sufficient grounds to support the jury’s verdict and to either overturn the entire verdict or a portion of it. Courts preferred post– verdict motions to pre—verdict motions because, if an appeals court reverses a post verdict motion, there is no need to redo the entire trial. Q: The jury believes the expert testimony presented for plaintiffs. Why did their judgment not stand? Their judgment could stand because one of the parties believed that there was an error of law; some areas that can include mistakes about the substantive law that was made during the trial. Bases for appeal include failure by the trial judge to admit or exclude certain evidence, improper instruction being given to the jury, and the granting or denying the motion to dismiss the case. Usually the party appealing must show that the mistake would have affected the outcome. In this case, Cooper Tire complained that the testimony of Richard Grogan was

More about Cooper Tire V. Mendez

Open Document