Rule 50.Motion for a Directed Verdict and for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
Part VI: Trials · Last amended 2008 · Last verified July 16, 2026
Full Text of Rule 15-6-50
Plain-English Summary
Rule 15-6-50 gives a party two chances to win a case on the law rather than the facts, when the evidence leaves no room for a reasonable jury to rule the other way. Before the case goes to the jury, either side may move for what the rule calls judgment as a matter of law: a motion asking the court to decide an issue itself because, on the evidence presented, there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the opposing party on that issue. The motion may come at any time before submission to the jury, but it must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts behind it.
If the trial court lets the case go to the jury anyway, the rule treats that as a decision to defer the legal question rather than resolve it. The losing party can then renew the motion after trial — the step often called a JNOV, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict — by filing within ten days after notice of entry of judgment. That renewed motion can stand alone or pair with a request for a new trial under Rule 15-6-59. What the court can do with it depends on whether the jury reached a verdict: if it did, the court may let the verdict stand, order a new trial, or direct entry of judgment as a matter of law; if it did not, the court may order a new trial or direct judgment as a matter of law.
When the court grants a renewed motion, it must also decide, conditionally, any pending new trial motion — spelling out whether that motion would be granted if the judgment it just entered is later vacated or reversed on appeal. That conditional ruling protects both sides: if the Supreme Court reverses, the case already has an answer on whether a new trial follows, rather than starting over from nothing. A party against whom judgment as a matter of law is entered has ten days from that entry to move for a new trial under Rule 15-6-59.
The rule also protects the party who won the motion below. If the trial court denies judgment as a matter of law and the Supreme Court later decides that denial was wrong, the prevailing party is not automatically stuck with a reversed judgment — Rule 15-6-50 lets that party argue, as respondent, that a new trial should follow instead, or lets the trial court sort that out on remand.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a JNOV in South Dakota?
They are the same basic motion at two different points in the case. Rule 15-6-50(a) lets a party move for judgment as a matter of law before the case goes to the jury. If the court does not grant it then, the party can renew the same request after the verdict under Rule 15-6-50(b) — what practitioners often call a JNOV, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
How soon after trial must I file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law?
Rule 15-6-50(b) requires the renewed motion to be filed no later than ten days after notice of entry of judgment. You can file it alone or combine it with a motion for a new trial under Rule 15-6-59.
Can I ask for a new trial and a JNOV at the same time in South Dakota?
Yes. Rule 15-6-50(b) lets the moving party alternatively request a new trial, or join a new trial motion under Rule 15-6-59, along with the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.
What can the court do with a renewed motion if the jury never reached a verdict?
Under Rule 15-6-50(b)(2), if no verdict was returned, the court may either order a new trial or direct entry of judgment as a matter of law.
If the trial court denies my motion for judgment as a matter of law and I still win at trial, can the other side revisit that on appeal?
Yes. Rule 15-6-50(d) lets the party who prevailed on the denied motion argue, as respondent on appeal, that a new trial should be granted if the Supreme Court concludes the trial court should have granted judgment as a matter of law.