Rule 50.Motion for a Directed Verdict and for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
Part VI: Trials · Last amended 2008 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceRule 15-6-50 lets the trial court take an issue away from the jury — before verdict through a motion for judgment as a matter of law, and after verdict through a renewed motion, sometimes called a JNOV — whenever no reasonable jury could find for a party on that issue.
(1)If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue.
(2)Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before submission of the case to the jury. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to the judgment.
(b)Renewing motion for judgment after trial — Alternative motion for new trial. If, for any reason, the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the evidence, 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 ten days after notice of entry of judgment - and may alternatively request a new trial or join a motion for a new trial under § 15-6-59. 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
(C)Direct entry of judgment as a matter of law; 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 ruling — New trial motion.
(1)If the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, provided for in § 15-6-50(b), 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 Supreme Court has otherwise ordered. In case the motion for a new trial has been conditionally denied, the respondent 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 Supreme Court.
(2)Any motion for a new trial under § 15-6-59 by a party against whom judgment as a matter of law is rendered shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.
(d)Denial of motion for judgment as matter of law. If the motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied, the party who prevailed on that motion may, as respondent, assert grounds entitling the party to a new trial in the event the Supreme Court concludes that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment. If the Supreme Court reverses the judgment, nothing in § 15-6-50 precludes it from determining that the respondent is entitled to a new trial, or from directing the trial court to determine whether a new trial shall be granted.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 15-6-50 gives a party two chances to win a case on the law rather than the facts, when the evidence leaves no room for a reasonable jury to rule the other way. Before the case goes to the jury, either side may move for what the rule calls judgment as a matter of law: a motion asking the court to decide an issue itself because, on the evidence presented, there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the opposing party on that issue. The motion may come at any time before submission to the jury, but it must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts behind it.
If the trial court lets the case go to the jury anyway, the rule treats that as a decision to defer the legal question rather than resolve it. The losing party can then renew the motion after trial — the step often called a JNOV, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict — by filing within ten days after notice of entry of judgment. That renewed motion can stand alone or pair with a request for a new trial under Rule 15-6-59. What the court can do with it depends on whether the jury reached a verdict: if it did, the court may let the verdict stand, order a new trial, or direct entry of judgment as a matter of law; if it did not, the court may order a new trial or direct judgment as a matter of law.
When the court grants a renewed motion, it must also decide, conditionally, any pending new trial motion — spelling out whether that motion would be granted if the judgment it just entered is later vacated or reversed on appeal. That conditional ruling protects both sides: if the Supreme Court reverses, the case already has an answer on whether a new trial follows, rather than starting over from nothing. A party against whom judgment as a matter of law is entered has ten days from that entry to move for a new trial under Rule 15-6-59.
The rule also protects the party who won the motion below. If the trial court denies judgment as a matter of law and the Supreme Court later decides that denial was wrong, the prevailing party is not automatically stuck with a reversed judgment — Rule 15-6-50 lets that party argue, as respondent, that a new trial should follow instead, or lets the trial court sort that out on remand.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a JNOV in South Dakota?
They are the same basic motion at two different points in the case. Rule 15-6-50(a) lets a party move for judgment as a matter of law before the case goes to the jury. If the court does not grant it then, the party can renew the same request after the verdict under Rule 15-6-50(b) — what practitioners often call a JNOV, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
How soon after trial must I file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law?
Rule 15-6-50(b) requires the renewed motion to be filed no later than ten days after notice of entry of judgment. You can file it alone or combine it with a motion for a new trial under Rule 15-6-59.
Can I ask for a new trial and a JNOV at the same time in South Dakota?
Yes. Rule 15-6-50(b) lets the moving party alternatively request a new trial, or join a new trial motion under Rule 15-6-59, along with the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.
What can the court do with a renewed motion if the jury never reached a verdict?
Under Rule 15-6-50(b)(2), if no verdict was returned, the court may either order a new trial or direct entry of judgment as a matter of law.
If the trial court denies my motion for judgment as a matter of law and I still win at trial, can the other side revisit that on appeal?
Yes. Rule 15-6-50(d) lets the party who prevailed on the denied motion argue, as respondent on appeal, that a new trial should be granted if the Supreme Court concludes the trial court should have granted judgment as a matter of law.
Amendment History
(a)SDC 1939 & Supp 1960, §§ 33.1314 to 33.1316; SD RCP, Rule 50 (a), as adopted by Sup. Ct. Order March 29, 1966, effective July 1, 1966; SL 2006, ch 318 (Supreme Court Rule 06-44).
(b)SDC 1939, § 33.1705; Supreme Court Order No. 3, 1952; SDC Supp 1960, § 33.1328; SD RCP, Rule 50 (b), as adopted by Sup. Ct. Order March 29, 1966, effective July 1, 1966; Supreme Court Rule 79-4; Supreme Court Rule 82-30; SL 2006, ch 319 (Supreme Court Rule 06-45); SL 2008, ch 287 (Supreme Court Rule 08-01).
(c)SD RCP, Rule 50 (c), as adopted by Sup. Ct. Order March 29, 1966, effective July 1, 1966; 2006, ch 320 (Supreme Court Rule 06-46).
(d)SD RCP, Rule 50 (d), as adopted by Sup. Ct. Order March 29, 1966, effective July 1, 1966; SL 2006, ch 321 (Supreme Court Rule 06-47).
Source & verification. Rule text and History are
reproduced verbatim from the South Dakota Codified Laws, published by the
South Dakota Legislative Research Council. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:south dakota JMOL motionjudgment as a matter of law south dakotaJNOV motion south dakotarenewed motion for judgment after verdictdirected verdict rule south dakotamotion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict