Opinion ID: 807901
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellate review of JMOL generally

Text: We review de novo the district court’s grant of State Farm’s renewed motion for JMOL, applying the same standard as the district court. See Bristol v. Bd. Of Cnty. Comm’rs of Cnty. of Clear Creek, 312 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2002) (en banc). Accordingly, we will affirm the district court if we determine that “a reasonable jury would not have [had] a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for” Bannister on his bad faith claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1); see also Bristol, 312 F.3d at 1216. In making that determination, we “construe the evidence and inferences most favorably to the nonmoving party, and refrain from weighing the evidence, passing on the credibility of witnesses, or substituting our judgment for that of the jury.” Magnum Foods, Inc. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 36 F.3d 1491, 1503 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Further, 15 “[a]lthough federal law dictates [the procedural question of] whether a judgment as a matter of law is appropriate, . . . in a diversity case we examine the evidence in terms of the underlying burden of proof as dictated by state law.” Id. (citations omitted).