## Facts

- Sandra Lee Neely brought a diversity wrongful-death action in federal district court alleging Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc.’s negligent construction and maintenance of a scaffold platform caused her father’s fatal fall.
- At the close of Neely’s case and again at the close of all evidence, Eby moved for a directed verdict; the district court denied both motions.
- The case was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict for Neely; judgment was entered for $25,000.
- Eby moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (or, alternatively, a new trial); the district court denied the motion.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded the evidence was legally insufficient to prove Eby’s negligence or proximate cause and reversed with instructions to dismiss.
- Neely sought Supreme Court review, challenging whether the court of appeals could direct dismissal rather than remand for possible new-trial proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the Seventh Amendment or limits on appellate jurisdiction bar a court of appeals from directing entry of judgment for the defendant after setting aside a plaintiff’s jury verdict for legally insufficient evidence where the trial court denied judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
2. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(d) permits an appellate court to direct entry of judgment for the defendant, or instead requires remand to allow the verdict-winner to pursue a new trial under procedures associated with Rule 50(c).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment directing dismissal.
- The Court held the Seventh Amendment does not bar appellate courts from directing entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict when the evidence is legally insufficient.
- The Court held the statutory grant of appellate jurisdiction is broad enough to include the power to direct entry of such a judgment on appeal.
- The Court construed Rule 50(d) as preserving the verdict-winner’s ability to request a new trial in the court of appeals if the verdict is set aside, while leaving the appellate court discretion to order a new trial or direct entry of judgment.
- Because Neely did not properly present grounds in the court of appeals warranting a new trial or remand for trial-court discretion, the court of appeals permissibly directed dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate courts may direct entry of judgment for a defendant when a plaintiff’s jury verdict is set aside for legally insufficient evidence; this is consistent with the Seventh Amendment.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(d) applies when the trial court denies judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the case proceeds on appeal; it allows the verdict-winner to seek a new trial in the court of appeals if the verdict is reversed.
- Rule 50(d) is permissive and does not require remand in every case where a verdict is overturned; the appellate court may either order a new trial or direct entry of judgment, depending on what is properly raised and supported.
- A verdict-winner opposing reversal should present, in the court of appeals, any grounds that would make entry of judgment inappropriate and that would call for trial-court discretion on remand.

## Conclusion

The Court confirmed that courts of appeals may direct entry of judgment for a defendant after determining that the evidence cannot support the plaintiff’s jury verdict, and that Rule 50(d) preserves—but does not mandate—the option of a new trial when the verdict-winner properly raises remand-worthy grounds.


Neely v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 386 U.S. 317 (1967)