Opinion ID: 741800
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jaml

Text: 8 We review the district court's denial of a motion for JAML de novo, applying the same standard used by the district court. Kaplon v. Howmedica, Inc., 83 F.3d 263, 266 (8th Cir.1996). We resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences and assuming as true all facts supporting the nonmoving party's case. Id. at 266-67. We affirm a denial of a motion for JAML if a reasonable jury could differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. Triton Corp. v. Hardrives, Inc., 85 F.3d 343, 345 (8th Cir.1996). We do not weigh or evaluate the evidence nor do we consider the credibility of the witnesses. Id. 9 After careful review of the record, we believe that the jury's findings on the special verdict are fully supported by the evidence. For each of the jury findings, Stoebner presented evidence to permit a jury to find in his favor. 3 Moreover, Lingenfelter failed to carry the substantial burden necessary to warrant JAML on his good faith for value defense. Lingenfelter presented little more than his personal background to demonstrate that he acted in good faith. This scant offer of proof barely challenged Stoebner's voluminous evidence that T.G. Blodgett received no value for the payments it made to Lingenfelter. Thus, we affirm the district court's denial of Lingenfelter's motion for JAML.