Opinion ID: 1230089
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of motion for j.n.o.v. or new trial

Text: The Bank contends that the trial court abused its discretion and erred in denying the Bank's motion for judgment of dismissal notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative for a new trial. [I]n determining if judgment n.o.v. should be granted, the trial court must employ a rigorous standard with a view toward preserving verdicts. Okken v. Okken, 325 N.W.2d 264, 267 (N.D.1982). The test is whether or not the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, leads to but one conclusion as to the verdict about which there can be no reasonable difference of opinion. Id. We employ the same standard on appeal. Id. We have already ruled against the Bank's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. As we recently said in Witthauer v. Burkhart Roentgen, Inc., 467 N.W.2d 439, 445 (N.D.1991): Because of our disposition of the issues on the appeal from the judgment entered on the jury verdict, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, in the alternative, for a new trial.