#JUDGMENT REVERSED TRIAL#

This is consistent with the Court of Appeals’ earlier pronouncement that when a trial court errs in denying a defendant’s motion for directed verdict or motion for j.n.o.v., “the correct procedure for the appellate court is to reverse and direct that judgment be entered for the moving party, if such action should undoubtedly follow.” Stafford Enters., Inc.

In sum, the general rule concerning remands for a new trial does not apply when the appellant moved for directed verdict or judgment n.o.v.

In doing so, the Court-citing Sugarloaf Mills-explained that the appellant had not moved at the bench trial to dismiss the attorney fee counterclaim on the basis of insufficient evidence, which would have been the equivalent of moving for directed verdict. There, the Court sustained a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support an attorneys’ fees award and remanded for a new trial. 263, 265-66 (2010).įour years later, the Court of Appeals reconfirmed this in Blumenshine v. As in Williamson, we hold that this decision by the landlord meant that following reversal and remand (absent contrary direction from this Court), the trial court was required to allow the tenant to prove those fees at a second trial. Thus, the tenant was not alerted to the need to reopen its case to cure this problem. Here, the landlord chose not to move to dismiss the tenant’s counterclaim at the first bench trial (which would have essentially been the equivalent to moving for a directed verdict in a jury trial) on the specific ground that the tenant failed to prove the amount of damages for its attorney fees counterclaim. In 2010, the Court of Appeals confirmed that the general rule discussed in Strickland-remand for a new trial-does not apply when the appellant moved for directed verdict or judgment n.o.v. 235, 236 (1970) (“Of course, if the evidence demands a verdict for either party, it is the duty of the appellate courts having jurisdiction, to so declare as a matter of law and end of the litigation.”). 197, 201 (2006) (“airness dictates that a party who has failed to move for a directed verdict at trial should not be able to obtain a judgment as a matter of law on appeal based on the contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.”) Skylark Enters., Inc. Because Williamson did not appeal the denial of a directed verdict or j.n.o.v., but rather the denial of a motion for new trial, the only remedy available to him is a new trial, at which S & S will have an opportunity to present additional or different evidence. If Williamson had moved for a directed verdict on the basis that S & S had not adequately proven damages, S & S could have sought to reopen its case and present additional proof, if it had any. We do not agree with Williamson that this holding gives S & S “a second bite at the apple,” as Williamson chose not to move for a directed verdict. Id. The Court explained that the result would have been different had the appellant moved for directed verdict and/or judgment n.o.v.: 784, 785 (2006). In Strickland, however, the only relief the appellant sought was a new trial. The Court of Appeals has said that as a general rule, where there is a judgment of reversal but no express direction of the appellate court to the lower court, a new trial must be had. When faced with the Supreme Court’s reversal of one of its opinions, the Court of Appeals must: (i) read the Supreme Court’s opinion within the context of the opinion being reversed (ii) determine whether any portions of the opinion being reversed were neither addressed nor considered by the Supreme Court and (iii) enter an appropriate disposition with regard to those portions that is consistent with the issue addressed and considered by the Supreme Court. EXISTING GEORGIA JURISPRUDENCE ON THE EFFECT OF AN APPELLATE COURT’S REVERSAL 800 (2004).This article proposes a new rule of appellate procedure to solve this problem. 286 (2016). As a result, cases sometimes ping pong up and down in the court system as the parties wrangle over the proper outcome in light of the appellate court’s ruling. The appellate court, whether it be the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, will render a judgment of reversal without any instructions as to whether the case should be retried or the lower court should render judgment for the winner. Yet that scenario occurs from time to time in Georgia. There is no good reason why the parties to an appeal should ever have to guess whether the appellate court’s judgment of reversal requires a new trial or rendition of judgment for the prevailing party.

Judgment reversed