Post-Trial Motions in U.S. Litigation

Post-trial motions are formal requests filed with a trial court after a verdict or judgment has been entered, asking the court to alter, vacate, or supplement that outcome before the case proceeds to appeal. This page covers the principal types of post-trial motions available in federal and state civil and criminal proceedings, the procedural rules that govern them, and the standards courts apply when deciding whether to grant relief. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for grasping how the trial record is preserved and challenged within the framework of the civil litigation process overview.

Definition and scope

A post-trial motion is any motion brought after the entry of judgment or verdict that seeks to have the trial court reconsider, correct, or set aside its own ruling. These motions occupy a distinct procedural space: they arise after the evidentiary record closes but before appellate jurisdiction fully attaches.

In federal civil practice, the primary vehicles are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 50(b) authorizes a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) following an adverse jury verdict. Rule 59 governs motions for a new trial and motions to alter or amend judgment. Rule 60 provides relief from a final judgment for reasons including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or the judgment being void.

In federal criminal practice, the analogous provisions appear in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 29(c) permits a renewed motion for judgment of acquittal after the jury returns a guilty verdict. Rule 33 allows a motion for new trial, and Rule 34 provides for arrest of judgment when the indictment fails to charge an offense or the court lacked jurisdiction.

State courts maintain parallel structures under their own rules of civil and criminal procedure, though filing deadlines and the precise scope of relief vary by jurisdiction. In California, for example, Code of Civil Procedure § 657 governs motions for new trial in state civil cases and enumerates seven distinct grounds for relief.

Post-trial motions serve three systemic functions: they give the trial court an opportunity to correct its own errors without appellate intervention, they preserve issues for appeal by requiring a party to first raise them at the trial court level, and they create a more complete record for any subsequent appellate review by the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

How it works

The post-trial motion process follows a structured sequence with strict deadlines that, if missed, can extinguish a party's right to relief.

  1. Verdict or judgment entered. The clock starts running from entry of judgment on the docket, not from the date the decision is announced orally.
  2. Motion filed within the applicable deadline. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(b), a motion for new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment. A Rule 50(b) renewed JMOL must also be filed within 28 days. These deadlines are jurisdictional in the sense that courts lack discretion to extend them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2).
  3. Response and reply briefing. The opposing party typically has 14 days to respond under local court rules, though courts may set different schedules by order.
  4. Hearing (discretionary). Many courts rule on post-trial motions on the papers without oral argument, particularly in districts with high caseloads. The court may request supplemental briefing or set a hearing if the issues are complex.
  5. Court ruling. The trial judge issues a written order granting, denying, or partially granting the motion. A full grant of a Rule 59 motion for new trial results in the prior verdict being vacated and the case reset for trial.
  6. Effect on appellate deadlines. A timely filed Rule 59 or Rule 50(b) motion tolls the time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4). The appellate clock resumes only after the trial court disposes of the post-trial motion.

The standard of review applied by the trial court differs by motion type — an important distinction explored further below under Decision Boundaries.

Common scenarios

Renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). A party that moved for JMOL under Rule 50(a) before the case went to the jury, and lost, may renew that motion after the verdict under Rule 50(b). The court asks whether a reasonable jury would have had a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the non-movant. This motion is closely connected to questions about the burden of proof standards in U.S. courts that governed the trial.

Motion for new trial. Under Rule 59(a), a court may grant a new trial on all or part of an issue on grounds including: the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive or inadequate, trial errors substantially prejudiced a party, or juror misconduct occurred. The "against the weight of the evidence" standard is more permissive than the JMOL standard — the court may weigh the evidence itself rather than viewing it in the light most favorable to the verdict-winner.

Motion to alter or amend judgment. Rule 59(e) permits a party to ask the court to correct legal errors, account for newly available evidence, or prevent manifest injustice. This motion is not a vehicle for re-litigating issues already decided or presenting arguments that could have been raised earlier, as courts across the federal circuits consistently hold.

Motion for relief from judgment. Rule 60(b) offers six distinct grounds: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; and (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6), the residual clause, is applied sparingly and requires extraordinary circumstances.

Motion in arrest of judgment (criminal). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 34, a defendant may move to arrest judgment within 14 days of verdict if the indictment or information does not charge an offense or the court was without jurisdiction. This motion is narrower in scope than its civil counterparts.

Remittitur and additur. When a jury's damages award is found excessive, a court may condition denial of a new trial on the plaintiff's acceptance of a reduced amount (remittitur). The inverse — additur, where the court increases a damages award — is constitutionally permissible in state courts but the U.S. Supreme Court held in Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935), that additur violates the Seventh Amendment in federal court. For deeper context on damages frameworks, see damages in U.S. litigation.

Decision boundaries

The distinctions between post-trial motions are not merely technical; they govern what relief is available, what standard the court applies, and what the parties must demonstrate.

JMOL vs. Motion for New Trial. A JMOL under Rule 50(b) results in judgment for the moving party — the court takes the case away from the jury entirely. A motion for new trial under Rule 59(a) results only in a do-over; it does not award the moving party a verdict. Because JMOL is more drastic, its standard is stricter: the court views all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and asks whether any reasonable jury could have found for the non-movant. Under a new trial motion, the court may exercise broader discretion and weigh credibility.

Rule 59(e) vs. Rule 60(b). Rule 59(e) must be filed within 28 days of judgment and is considered part of the original proceeding; Rule 60(b) motions for reasons (1)–(3) must be filed within 1 year, and reason (6) motions within a "reasonable time." Courts distinguish the two because a timely Rule 59(e) motion tolls the appellate clock while a Rule 60(b) motion filed more than 28 days after judgment generally does not.

Preservation requirements. Most post-trial motions in civil cases require that the underlying objection was preserved at trial. A party that failed to object to a jury instruction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51, or that failed to move for JMOL under Rule 50(a) before the case went to the jury, typically cannot use a post-trial motion to manufacture a preserved issue. This preservation logic connects directly to the evidentiary framework examined in rules of evidence in U.S. litigation and to the earlier pretrial motions in U.S. courts that shape which issues enter the record.

Criminal vs. civil standards. In criminal proceedings, the constitutional dimension is sharper. A court that grants a Rule 29(c) acquittal after conviction is entering a judgment of acquittal that triggers Double Jeopardy protections under the Fifth Amendment — the government cannot appeal that ruling and retry the defendant. By contrast, granting a new trial under Rule 33 does not bar retrial because jeopardy has not terminated. This distinction has been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases including Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978), which held that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial after a reversal based on insufficient evidence. The broader criminal procedure framework is covered at criminal litigation process overview.

Effect on subsequent enforcement. A pending post-trial motion typically stays enforcement of the judgment, though a court may require the posting of a supersedeas bond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62. Once post-trial motions are resolved, the judgment becomes fully enforceable subject to any appellate stay — see enforcement of judgments in U.S. courts for the mechanics of that process. Doctrines of [res judicata and collateral estoppel](/res-ju

References

Explore This Site

Regulations & Safety Regulatory References Tools & Calculators Attorney Fee Estimator