Opinion ID: 1987708
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Motions: The Standards Must Be The Same

Text: Just as the scope of no-evidence review must coincide with its goals, the scope of review should not depend upon the motion in which it is asserted. Judgment without or against a jury verdict is proper at any course of the proceedings only when the law does not allow reasonable jurors to decide otherwise. Accordingly, the test for legal sufficiency should be the same for summary judgments, directed verdicts, judgments notwithstanding the verdict, and appellate no-evidence review. Our statements of the standard for reviewing a directed verdict present the same mixed bag found with general no-evidence review. We have most often used the exclusive standard, stating that courts reviewing directed verdicts must consider only evidence supporting the nonmovant's case and disregard all contrary evidence. [117] But we have also stated that reviewing courts should use the inclusive standard, considering all the evidence in a light contrary to the directed verdict. [118] And we have sometimes stated both, requiring reviewing courts to consider all the evidence in a light contrary to the directed verdict and then to disregard all conflicting evidence that supports it. [119] By contrast, cases concerning judgments non obstante verdicto most often utilize the inclusive scope of review. Beginning with the 1931 amendment authorizing trial judges to grant them, [120] we have generally reviewed such orders by considering all the evidence in a light favorable to the verdict that was set aside. [121] In later years we have sometimes adopted the exclusive standard, [122] but our opinions doing so usually cite to general no-evidence cases in which no judgment n.o.v. was involved. [123] The one exception in which both standards do not expressly appear is in the scope of review for summary judgments. Here, there is only one standard  a reviewing court must examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts against the motion. [124] Reviewing courts do not disregard the evidence supporting the motion; if they did, all summary judgments would be reversed. In practice, however, a different scope of review applies when a summary judgment motion is filed without supporting evidence. [125] In such cases, evidence supporting the motion is effectively disregarded because there is none; under the rule, it is not allowed. Thus, although a reviewing court must consider all the summary judgment evidence on file, in some cases that review will effectively be restricted to the evidence contrary to the motion. The standards for taking any case from the jury should be the same, no matter what motion is used. If only one standard were proper, we would not expect both to appear in cases reviewing directed verdicts, judgments notwithstanding the verdict, and summary judgments. But both do.