Opinion ID: 1632630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Necessity of a Motion for a New Trial

Text: Rule 50.05, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, provides the answer in unmistakable language: Whenever a court shall have granted a directed verdict, it shall not be necessary for the party against whom the verdict was directed to file a motion for a new trial in order to obtain appellate review of such action of the court. (Emphasis supplied). It was the purpose of this rule to eliminate a technical in the extreme requirement from previous practice, one that had no reasonable basis and which served needlessly to delay and prolong litigation. (See Committee Comment.) In holding a motion for a new trial to be necessary, the Court of Appeals relied upon four cases. Three of them were decided in 1906, 1915 and 1917, respectively. The holdings in these cases were made obsolete by the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure in 1970, effective January 1, 1971. The fourth case, Rupe v. Durkin Durco, Inc., 557 S.W.2d 742, (Tenn. App. 1976), was cited for the proposition that the appellate courts will closely scrutinize any procedural rule which abrogates the necessity for a motion for a new trial in a jury case. We reject this holding. Certiorari was not applied for in Rupe and we are not bound by a conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals. The rules governing practice and procedure in the trial and appellate courts of Tennessee were promulgated by joint action of the General Assembly and the Supreme Court. They have the force and effect of law.