If you’ve ever finished a trial question on the MBE and thought “wait, can they even file that after the verdict?”— the motion for new trial is probably what tripped you up.

This is one of those Civil Procedure topics that students consistently underestimate. It looks simple on the surface. But the MBE loves to test the edges — the timing rules, the grounds, the standard of review, and how the motion interacts with other post-trial motions. Get fuzzy on any of those details and you’re dropping points you didn’t need to lose.

Here’s everything you need to know about the motion for new trial for the MBE.

What Is a Motion for New Trial?

A motion for new trial under FRCP 59 allows a party to ask the court to set aside a verdict and retry the case — or, in a bench trial, to amend the court’s findings. It’s a post-trial motion, which means it comes after judgment has already been entered. The party isn’t asking the court to enter judgment in their favor the way they would with a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under FRCP 50(b). They’re asking for a do-over.

That distinction matters. A lot. The MBE will test whether you know which motion fits which situation.

Motion for New Trial Elements: What Grounds Qualify?

FRCP 59 doesn’t give you a neat checklist of elements the way some rules do. Instead, it authorizes a new trial “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.” That sounds vague — and it is, intentionally. But courts have developed a consistent set of recognized grounds over time.

For a jury trial, a court may grant a new trial when:

That last one deserves a closer look because it generates its own set of sub-rules.

Remittitur and Additur: The Damages Correction Tools

When a jury returns a damages award that seems wildly out of proportion, the court has tools to fix it without ordering a full new trial.

Remittitur is when the court finds the jury’s damages award is excessive. The court gives the plaintiff a choice: accept a reduced award or face a new trial on damages. This is permitted in federal court.

Additur is the flip side — the court finds the award is inadequate and gives the defendant the choice to either consent to an increased award or face a new trial. Here’s the catch: the Supreme Court held in Dimick v. Schiedt that additur violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in federal court. So additur is not available in federal court. State courts vary.

This is a classic MBE trap. The question will describe a situation where a plaintiff gets a shockingly low damages award, and you need to know that a federal court can’t just increase it — the proper remedy is a new trial on damages, not additur.

The Timing Rule: 28 Days and It’s Gone

Under FRCP 59(b), a motion for new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment. This is a hard deadline. Courts cannot extend it. Parties cannot stipulate around it.

This trips people up constantly because they confuse it with other post-trial deadlines. Here’s a quick comparison to keep straight:

The 28-day deadline for a motion for new trial also tolls the time to appeal. When a timely FRCP 59 motion is filed, the clock on the appeal doesn’t start running until the court rules on the motion. This matters if the MBE gives you a fact pattern where someone is trying to figure out whether an appeal is timely.

Motion for New Trial vs. Renewed JMOL: Know the Difference

This is the comparison the MBE loves to test. Both are post-trial motions. Both are filed within 28 days. But they do very different things.

A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under FRCP 50(b) says: no reasonable jury could have reached this verdict — so enter judgment for me right now. The standard is whether a reasonable jury had a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for its verdict. It’s a high bar, and critically, you can only file a renewed JMOL if you first made a JMOL motion under FRCP 50(a) before the case went to the jury. Skip that step and you’ve waived the renewed JMOL entirely.

A motion for new trial doesn’t require that prior motion. And it uses a different standard — not whether any reasonable jury could reach the verdict, but whether the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. The court is permitted to weigh the evidence itself when ruling on a new trial motion, which it cannot do on a JMOL.

Here’s a hypothetical that captures the difference:

Parker sues Delgado for negligence. At trial, the evidence strongly favors Parker, but the jury returns a verdict for Delgado. Parker’s attorney never made a FRCP 50(a) motion during trial. After judgment, Parker wants to challenge the verdict.

Parker cannot file a renewed JMOL — she waived it by not moving under 50(a) first. But she can file a motion for new trial under FRCP 59. The court can weigh the evidence and decide whether the verdict is against its great weight. This is an important safety valve.

Can You File Both at the Same Time?

Yes. FRCP 50(b) expressly allows a party to file a renewed JMOL and a motion for new trial simultaneously. Courts often rule on both together. If the court grants the renewed JMOL, it should also conditionally rule on the new trial motion — because if the JMOL is reversed on appeal, the appellate court needs to know what would happen on remand.

Standard of Review on Appeal

When a trial court grants or denies a motion for new trial, appellate courts review that decision for abuse of discretion. That’s a deferential standard. The trial court has significant latitude here, especially on issues involving witness credibility and the weight of evidence. This is different from the de novo standard that applies to pure legal questions.

The Mistakes Bar Takers Make

Let me be direct about the errors I see most often on this topic:

Confusing the standard. JMOL asks whether a reasonable jury could have found this way. New trial asks whether the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. These are not the same question.

Forgetting the 28-day deadline is absolute. Unlike many other procedural deadlines, courts have no power to extend this one under FRCP 6(b)(2).

Missing the additur trap. If a federal court question involves a low damages award, additur is off the table. The answer is a new trial on damages, full stop.

Forgetting the FRCP 50(a) prerequisite. You cannot file a renewed JMOL without the predicate motion made before the case went to the jury. The new trial motion doesn’t have this requirement — which is why knowing both matters.

FlashTables is a set of professionally formatted two-column PDF rule tables covering all seven MBE subjects — 704 rules total, organized by the official NCBE Subject Matter Outline. The motion for new trial rules, including the interplay with renewed JMOL, the timing requirements, and the remittitur/additur distinction, are all laid out side-by-side in the Civil Procedure table. Whether you’re a law student building your Civil Procedure outline or a bar taker drilling active recall in the final weeks before the exam, the tables give you the black-letter rules in a format you can actually use. You can see what’s covered at getflashtables.com.

Key Takeaways: Motion for New Trial MBE Rules to Memorize

Master these rules and you’ll stop second-guessing yourself on post-trial motion questions. That’s a category of Civil Procedure points that’s entirely within your control.