Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when a party moves for a new trial on the ground that the jury's verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, which of the following best states the procedural requirements for that motion?
The motion must be accompanied by a supersedeas bond equal to the amount of the judgment to preserve appellate rights.
The motion need only assert that the verdict is contrary to law; no further detail is required because the trial transcript is already part of the record.
The motion must be in writing and state with particularity the grounds for relief, including citation to specific evidence or portions of the record supporting the challenge.
The motion may be made orally as long as it is presented within 28 days after the entry of judgment.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 permits a court to grant a new trial if, among other reasons, the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Rule 7(b)(1), which governs the form of all motions, requires that a written motion "state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order" and "state the relief sought." Consequently, a movant must point to specific portions of the record and explain why those facts cannot support the verdict. Vague or conclusory statements do not satisfy the rule, an oral motion is insufficient unless made during the hearing, and no bond is required simply to file a Rule 59 motion. Therefore, only the first choice states the correct procedural requirement; the remaining options omit a required element or add an unwarranted one.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'great weight of the evidence' mean in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the typical grounds for filing a motion for a new trial?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does the court assess a motion for a new trial based on the jury's verdict?