A federal judge in Missouri granted a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

The first is the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Alternatively, the plaintiff can draft his own "notice of motion for judgment".

After learning of the jury's inability to decide, the district court granted an earlier defense motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Petitioners' motion for judgment notwithstanding, the verdict was denied.

The District Court denied Sikorsky's motion for judgment not withstanding the verdict.

On January 25, 1993, the trial court issued an order denying Slee's motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict or a new trial.

Alcatel-Lucent won the trial and $1.52 billion in damages, but the judge granted Microsoft's motion for judgment and new trial.

Motion for judgment n.o.v.

Following the verdict, The College Network filed again for a motion for judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, for a new trial.

The trial court found defendants liable for attempted monopolization and denied their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.

Federal Judge Douglas P. Woodlock denied Mirant's motion to vacate the award, and the union's motion for judgment was granted.

After the presentation of the government's case, the district court judge granted Alvarez's motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground of insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict.

Virginia has a motion called a "motion to strike the evidence", which functions exactly the same as a motion for judgment as a matter of law in most other courts.

In the Virginia General District Court, the summons is referred to as either a "warrant" or as a "notice of motion for judgment" depending on the kind of case brought.

Following remand, the President filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the blood bank's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to the counts of negligence and intentional misrepresentation and, conditioned on the plaintiffs' acceptance, reduced the award to $416,307.

A "motion for judgment n.o.v." (non obstante veredicto, or notwithstanding the verdict) asks the court to reverse the jury's verdict on the grounds that the jury could not reasonably have reached such a verdict.

Both sides finished presenting evidence to support their respective claims on January 15, after which both the plaintiff and the defendants submitted motions for judgment as a matter of law, all of which were denied on January 16.

Judge Young dismissed the jury after it did not reach a verdict on the risks associated with use of the device and granted Searle's motion for judgment on the grounds that the testimony had been inadequate to meet the burden of proof.

In approaching this case, the Court applied the de novo standard of review, with the expectation to uphold the denials of the motion for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial unless there was absolutely no evidence backing up the claim.

In 2011, Home Depot appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the district court's denial of its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issues of infringement, willfulness, and damages.

At the close of the Government's case, after six weeks of trial, however, the District Court concluded that there was a "complete lack of direct evidence" connecting the defendants to any of the criminal wrongdoing alleged, and it granted the REI defendants' motion for judgment of acquittal.

Subsequently, on August 6, 2007 the federal judge in San Diego, U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster, granted Microsoft's motions for Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and for new trial, saying that the jury's decision was not supported by the evidence.

Other pretrial motions, such as a "motion for judgment on the pleadings" or a "motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," can be converted by the judge to summary-judgment motions if matters outside the pleadings are presented to-and not excluded by-the trial-court judge.