California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Affiliated Gas Equipment, Inc., 12 Cal.Rptr. 729, 191 Cal.App.2d 318 (Cal. App. 1961):
Appellants also contend that the court erred in granting the motion of defendant Affiliated for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In Reynolds v. Willson, 51 Cal.2d 94, at page 99, 331 P.2d 48 at page 51, it was said that a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict 'may be granted only if a motion for a directed verdict should have been granted. * * * The power of the court to direct a verdict is subject to the same limitations as its power to grant a nonsuit. * * * A nonsuit may be granted only where, disregarding conflicting evidence on behalf of the defendants and giving to plaintiff's evidence all the value to which it is legally entitled, * * * the result is a determination that there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. * * * In conformity with the foregoing rules the main if not the only problem presented is whether (disregarding all conflicting evidence favorable to the defendants), there is sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict on any tenable theory of liability.'
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.