Nodak Oil Co. v. Mobil Oil Corporation
| Decision Date | 28 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1309.,75-1309. |
| Citation | 526 F.2d 798 |
| Parties | NODAK OIL CO., a North Dakota Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John Hjellum, Jamestown, N. D., for appellant.
J. Gerald Nilles, Fargo, N. D., for appellee.
Before MATTHES, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.
This matter came before this court for argument and final submission on November 14, 1975. The record reveals that in the district court the defendant, Mobil Oil Corporation, moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 following a jury trial which resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff, Nodak Oil Company. The district court in its memorandum and order at 391 F. Supp. 276 (D.N.D. 1975) granted the motion by Mobil for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict but did not specifically rule on the alternative motion for a new trial.
This "inflexible command" to rule conditionally on the new trial motion is a codification of the principles established by the Supreme Court in Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 253, 61 S.Ct. 189, 85 L.Ed. 147 (1940). See Gordon Mailloux Enterprises v. Firemen's Insurance Co., 366 F.2d 740, 741-42 (9th Cir. 1966). See generally Mays v. Pioneer Lumber Co., 502 F.2d 106, 109-10 (4th Cir. 1975); McClain v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 473 F.2d 357, 358 & n. 1 (5th Cir. 1973); Bryant v. Rankin, 332 F. Supp. 319, 324 (S.D.Iowa 1971); J. Moore, Federal Fractice ¶ 50.131 (1975). This language was added to Rule 50 in 1963 in order "to clarify the proper practice under this Rule." Neely v. Eby Construction Co., 386 U.S. 317, 322, 87 S.Ct. 1072, 1077, 18 L.Ed.2d 75 (1967).
In view of the district court's failure in the instant case to make the required conditional ruling on the alternative motion for a new trial, we retain jurisdiction and remand this case for the purpose of such a ruling pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(c)(1).
The district court shall certify to this court its ruling on the alternative motion of defendant, Mobil Oil Corporation, for a new trial. The party adversely affected by the conditional ruling on the motion for new trial shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jennings v. Jones
...therefore do not know whether those courts faced the situation confronting us or the situation in Freund. See Nodak Oil Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 526 F.2d 798, 798 (8th Cir.1975); Mays v. Pioneer Lumber Corp., 502 F.2d 106, 109 (4th C. Other Considerations We are mindful of the important cons......
-
Christopher v. Florida, No. 04-16319.
...v. Vermont Castings, Inc., 825 F.2d 1158, 1165 (7th Cir.1987) (remanding for ruling on new trial motion); Nodak Oil Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 526 F.2d 798, 798 (8th Cir.1975)(remanding for a ruling on new trial motion while retaining jurisdiction). Our decision to accept that the district cou......
-
Ellison v. Conoco, Inc., 90-3360
...new trial motion, in our view a remand in this case would only waste valuable judicial resources. But see Nodak Oil Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 526 F.2d 798, 799 (8th Cir.1975) (remanding for ruling on conditional motion for new trial before reaching merits of appeal), rev'd on other grounds af......
-
Johnson v. Southern Minnesota Machinery Sales, Inc.
...502 F.2d 106, 109 (4th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 927, 95 S.Ct. 1125, 43 L.Ed.2d 398 (1975). See also Nodak Oil Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 526 F.2d 798, 798-99 (8th Cir.1975) (U.S. Supreme Court has established an "inflexible command" to rule conditionally on new trial When Johnson's co......