Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 is the rule that lets a party ask the trial judge for a new trial or an amended judgment after entry of judgment in federal court. It is a post-trial fix, not an appeal.

What is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59?

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 is the federal rule that gives a losing party a short window to ask the trial court to reconsider what just happened. In Civil Procedure, it shows up right after judgment is entered, when a party thinks the trial was affected by a serious error, bad jury behavior, or a verdict that does not match the evidence.

The rule has two main uses. A party can move for a new trial, which asks the judge to run the trial again, or move to alter or amend the judgment, which asks the judge to change the result without starting over. That second option is narrower, but it can matter a lot when the problem is the amount of damages, a legal mistake in the judgment, or another issue the judge can correct directly.

Timing is the big trap. A Rule 59 motion has to be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment. That deadline is tight, and it is different from an appeal, which goes to a higher court. Rule 59 stays at the trial-court level, usually with the same judge who presided over the case, so the point is to fix problems quickly before the case moves into appellate review.

The grounds for a new trial are not just "the outcome felt unfair." You usually need something concrete, like improper admission or exclusion of evidence, jury misconduct, a verdict against the weight of the evidence, or another error that likely affected the result. If the judge agrees, the remedy can be a new trial on all or part of the case.

In practice, Rule 59 sits in the post-trial sequence after the court enters judgment under Rule 58. Once judgment is entered, the clock starts running on motions and appeals, so Rule 59 is part of that narrow decision period when the trial court still has control over the result.

Why Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 matters in Civil Procedure

Rule 59 is one of the main ways Civil Procedure shows how a case can change after trial without jumping straight to appeal. It helps you see that judgment is not always the final stop. The federal rules give the trial judge a chance to fix serious mistakes, which keeps some disputes from being dragged into appellate court unnecessarily.

It also ties together several post-trial ideas you see in the course: entry of judgment, the finality of decisions, and the difference between trial-level correction and appellate review. If you can spot when a party should use Rule 59 instead of appealing right away, you understand a big part of how federal litigation moves after the verdict.

This rule also shows why deadlines matter so much in Civil Procedure. Missing the 28-day window can mean losing a chance to ask the trial judge for relief. In essay questions and issue-spotting problems, that deadline often tells you whether the party still has a post-trial remedy available.

How Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 connects across the course

Motion for New Trial

A motion for a new trial is one of the main requests allowed under Rule 59. This is the option you use when the problem is serious enough that the verdict may need to be redone, not just tweaked. Look for it when the issue is trial error, jury misconduct, or a verdict that seems unsupported by the evidence.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58

Rule 58 matters because judgment has to be entered before Rule 59's clock starts. If you are tracing the post-trial timeline, Rule 58 is the entry point and Rule 59 is one of the first responses that can follow. A problem set may ask you to identify when the 28-day period begins.

Judgment

Rule 59 only makes sense once there is a judgment to challenge. The term helps you separate the court's final decision from the trial itself, and that distinction matters for deadlines and remedies. If you see a prompt about changing the outcome after trial, judgment is the thing being attacked.

Remittitur

Remittitur comes up when a judge thinks the damages award is too high and offers a reduction instead of ordering a whole new trial. That makes it a close neighbor to Rule 59 because both deal with post-verdict correction at the trial-court level. The difference is that remittitur focuses on cutting an excessive award.

Is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 on the Civil Procedure exam?

A quiz or issue-spotting question will usually give you a verdict date, a complaint about trial error, and a filing date, then ask what remedy is still available. Your job is to spot Rule 59 when the party is asking the trial judge for a new trial or an amended judgment within 28 days of entry of judgment. If the facts mention jury misconduct, evidentiary error, or a verdict against the weight of the evidence, that is a strong Rule 59 signal.

You also need to separate it from an appeal. Rule 59 is a trial-court motion, so if the question asks where the party should file and what court decides it, the answer is the trial judge, not the appellate court. In a short answer or essay, mention the timing, the type of relief requested, and the reason the party is asking for post-trial correction.

Key things to remember about Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59

• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 lets a party ask the trial court for a new trial or an amended judgment after judgment is entered.

• The rule usually must be used within 28 days, so timing is part of the legal analysis, not just a detail.

• A Rule 59 motion stays in the trial court, which makes it different from an appeal to a higher court.

• Common grounds include jury misconduct, evidentiary mistakes, or a verdict that does not fit the evidence.

• In Civil Procedure, Rule 59 sits in the post-trial timeline right after judgment and before appellate review becomes the main path.

Frequently asked questions about Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59

What is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 in Civil Procedure?

It is the federal rule that lets a party ask the trial judge for a new trial or for the judgment to be altered or amended after the case is decided. The motion has to be filed quickly, usually within 28 days after entry of judgment. It is a post-trial remedy at the trial-court level.

Is Rule 59 the same as an appeal?

No. Rule 59 is filed in the trial court and is decided by the judge who handled the case, while an appeal goes to a higher court. A Rule 59 motion asks for correction before appellate review starts, so it is more like a trial-level fix than a full review of the case.

What are common grounds for a Rule 59 motion?

Typical grounds include jury misconduct, errors in admitting or excluding evidence, and verdicts that are against the weight of the evidence. A party can also seek to amend a judgment if the judgment itself needs correction. The motion needs a concrete legal or factual reason, not just disappointment with the outcome.

How does Rule 59 relate to entry of judgment?

Rule 59 starts running only after judgment has been entered, so the entry date matters a lot. In Civil Procedure, that makes Rule 58 and Rule 59 part of the same post-trial sequence. If you miss the judgment date or misread when it was entered, you can miscalculate the filing deadline.