Rule 1-050.Judgment as a matter of law in jury trials; alternative motion for new trial; conditional rulings

Last amended December 31, 2013 · Last verified June 26, 2026

In one sentenceRule 1-050 lets the court enter judgment as a matter of law when no reasonable jury could find for a party, and governs renewing the motion after trial and conditional new-trial rulings.

Full Text of Rule 1-050

Text sizeJump to: (A) (B) (C) (D)

A. Judgment as a matter of law.

(1) If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may

(a) resolve the issue against the party; and

(b) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.

(2) A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.

B. Renewing the motion after trial; alternative motion for a new trial. If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Paragraph A of this rule, the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. The movant may renew its request for judgment as a matter of law by filing a motion no later than thirty (30) days after the entry of judgment or - if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict - no later than thirty (30) days after the jury was discharged. The movant may alternatively request a new trial or join a motion for a new trial under Rule 1-059 NMRA. In ruling on a renewed motion, the court may,

(1) if a verdict was returned,

(a) allow the judgment to stand;

(b) order a new trial; or

(2) if no verdict was returned,

(a) order a new trial; or

(b) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law.

C. Granting renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law; conditional rulings; new trial motion.

(1) If the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted, the court shall also rule on the motion for a new trial, if any, by determining whether it should be granted if the judgment is thereafter vacated or reversed, and shall specify the grounds for granting or denying the motion for the new trial. If the motion for a new trial is thus conditionally granted, the order thereon does not affect the finality of the judgment. In case the motion for a new trial has been conditionally granted and the judgment is reversed on appeal, the new trial shall proceed unless the appellate court has otherwise ordered. In case the motion for a new trial has been conditionally denied, the appellee on appeal may assert error in that denial; and if the judgment is reversed on appeal, subsequent proceedings shall be in accordance with the order of the appellate court.

(2) Any motion for a new trial under Rule 1-059 NMRA by a party against whom judgment as a matter of law is rendered shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after entry of the judgment.

D. Denial of motion for judgment as a matter of law. If the motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied, the party who prevailed on that motion may, as appellee, assert grounds entitling the party to a new trial in the event the appellate court concludes that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, nothing in this rule precludes it from determining that the appellee is entitled to a new trial, or from directing the trial court to determine whether a new trial shall be granted.

End

Rule History

[As amended, effective September 27, 1999; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 07-8300-001, effective March 15, 2007; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 13-8300-032, effective in all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2013.]

Committee Commentary

Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978, adopted in 1897, provides that a trial court in some cases has continuing jurisdiction over its judgments for thirty (30) days after their entry. See, e.g., Laffoon v.Galles Motor Co., 80 N.M. 1, 450 P.2d 439 (Ct. App. 1969). Rather than have a ten (10)-day time requirement for filing most post-judgment motions but a thirty (30)-day time frame for filing motions under Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978, the 2013 amendments extend the time for filing all post-trial motions, including renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law, to thirty (30) days from entry of the final judgment. The decision to extend the time to thirty (30) days rather than to limit Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978 motions to ten (10) days was made because the prior ten (10)-day requirement often left insufficient time for parties to research, formulate, and prepare post-judgment motions. In addition, the choice of thirty (30) days makes it unnecessary to determine whether the provision in Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978 for extended post-judgment jurisdiction of the district court is consistent with the principle of separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. See Rule 1-091 NMRA; Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 89 N.M. 307, 551 P.2d 1354 (1976). The intent and effect of the 2013 amendment to Rule 1-050(B) and (C)(2) NMRA is to expand the time for filing those motions to thirty (30) days from entry of the judgment.

Motions are no longer deemed denied if not ruled upon for thirty (30) days after submission. Rule 1-054.1 NMRA. See the Committee Commentary for 2006 Amendment to Rule 1-054.1 NMRA for additional information. Instead, Rule 1-054.1 NMRA directs district courts to enter an order within sixty (60) days of submission. Id. Normally, the party filing a post-judgment motion has to await entry of an order from the district court ruling on the motion before filing an effective notice of appeal because where a timely Rule 1-050(B) or (C) NMRA motion has been filed, the time for filing a notice of appeal runs from the date of entry of an order that expressly disposes of the motion. See Dickens v. Laurel Healthcare, LLC, 2009-NMCA-122, ¶ 4, 147 N.M. 303, 222 P.3d 675 (notice of appeal filed prior to ruling on pending Rule 1-059(E) NMRA motion is premature and time for filing notice of appeal does not begin to run until order is entered resolving Rule 1-059(E) NMRA motion). A party who makes a timely Rule 1-050(B) or (C) NMRA motion may thereafter prefer to forgo an express ruling on the motion and, instead, start the appellate process. Appellate Rule 12-201(D)(3) NMRA provides that a Rule 1-050(B) or (C) NMRA movant may file a notice of withdrawal of the motion, thus affecting the time for filing a notice of appeal as provided in Rule 12-201(D)(3) NMRA.

The effect of the withdrawal of a renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law on the ability of the party to assert on appeal that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict is not free from doubt. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that, in federal court, a renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law is a necessary prerequisite to appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict. Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 400-01 (2006). In dictum, the New Mexico Supreme Court has not required that there be a ruling on a motion for judgment n.o.v. (now a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law). See Romero v. Mervyn’s, 109 N.M. 249, 253 n.2, 784 P.2d 992, 996 n.2 (1989) (requiring “a motion for a directed verdict, objection to instructions, or a motion for j.n.o.v.” (emphasis added)).

Under Rule 12-201(D)(4) NMRA, a timely filed notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to dispose of any timely filed motion under Rules 1-050, 1-052, or 1-059 NMRA, or a Rule 1-060 NMRA motion filed within thirty (30) days after the filing of a judgment. The notice of appeal becomes effective when the last such motion is disposed of expressly by an order of the district court, is automatically denied, or is withdrawn.

[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 13-8300-032, effective in all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2013.]

Plain-English Summary

This rule is New Mexico’s directed-verdict and judgment-notwithstanding-the-verdict procedure. During a jury trial, once a party has been fully heard on an issue, the court may grant judgment as a matter of law against that party if a reasonable jury would lack a legally sufficient basis to find in its favor; the motion may be made any time before the case goes to the jury and must specify the judgment sought and the supporting law and facts.

If the court does not grant the motion, it is treated as having submitted the case subject to later deciding the legal questions. The movant may renew the motion within thirty days after judgment (or after the jury is discharged on an undecided issue) and may alternatively or additionally seek a new trial under Rule 1-059. On the renewed motion the court may let the judgment stand, order a new trial, or direct entry of judgment as a matter of law.

When it grants a renewed motion, the court must also rule conditionally on any new-trial motion in case the judgment is later reversed, preserving the parties’ appellate options. As the committee commentary explains, the 2013 amendments extended the time for post-trial motions to thirty days.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is judgment as a matter of law?

A ruling that, once a party has been fully heard on an issue, no reasonable jury could find in its favor, so the court resolves the issue against it rather than letting the jury decide.

How long do I have to renew the motion after trial?

Within thirty days after entry of judgment, or—if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict—within thirty days after the jury was discharged.

Source & verification. Rule text and Committee commentary reproduced verbatim from the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts (Rule 1-050 NMRA), published by the New Mexico Compilation Commission (NMOneSource). Promulgated by the Supreme Court of New Mexico. The plain-English summary is original and draws on the official annotations. Last verified June 26, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: judgment as a matter of lawdirected verdictJNOVrenewed motionmotion for new trial