Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. 546 U.S. 394 (2006) Unitherm was suing Swift over an antitrust issue. As the plaintiffs, Unitherm presented their case first. Ehen Unitherm rested, Swift moved for a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) (aka Rule 50). Swift argued that Unitherm had failed to put on sufficient evidence to support a finding of antitrust liability. The Trial judge rejected the motion, the trial proceeded, and Swift put on their defense. At the close of all evidence, Swift failed to make a renewed motion for JMOL (Rule 50(b)) or a motion for new trial (Rule 59) on the basis of insufficient evidence. The Trial Court found for Unitherm. Swift appealed. Swift argued in the Appellate Court that Unitherm had failed to show sufficient evidence. The US Supreme Court affirmed. The US Supreme Court found that Swift's failure to make a post-trial motion precluded Swift from raising the question of evidentiary sufficiency on appeal, either to support JMOL or a new trial. The Court noted that the Trial judge is in the best position to determine sufficiency of the evidence, and thus that a party may not bypass presenting the question to the Trial Court and raising it directly on appeal. Basically, if you feel that the opposing side has not presented enough evidence to win the case, you must make both a Rule 50 JMOL motion when they rest their case and make a Rule 50(b) or Rule 59 motion at the close of all evidence. If you don't take both these actions, you can't argue them on appeal. The basis of an appeal is that the Trial Court made a mistake, but if you don't make both of those motions, then the Trial Court never rules on the issue, so it can't be said that they've made a mistake.