What is the test for sustaining a motion for a new trial on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Faraj v. Ritter, B245891 (Cal. App. 2014):
"specific enough to facilitate appellate review and avoid any need for the appellate court to rely on inferences or speculation." (Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2007) 41 Cal.4th 624, 634.)
"[O]n appeal from an order granting a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence . . . [the] order shall be reversed as to such ground only if there is no substantial basis in the record for any of such reasons." (Code Civ. Proc., 657.) The order granting a motion for a new trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence "must be sustained on appeal unless the opposing party demonstrates that no reasonable finder of fact could have found for the movant on that theory." (Jones v. Citrus Motors Ontario, Inc. (1973) 8 Cal.3d 706, 710.)
"It is well settled that the granting of a motion for a new trial rests so completely within the discretion of the trial court that its action will not be disturbed unless a manifest and unmistakable abuse of discretion clearly appears. [Citations] On appeal all presumptions are in favor of the order granting a new trial [citations], and the order will be affirmed if it may be sustained on any ground [citations]." (Brandelius v. City & County of S. F. (1957) 47 Cal.2d 729, 733.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
