---
title: "McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood"
description: "McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood sets the standard for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence in Civil Procedure."
canonical: "https://fiveable.me/civil-procedure/key-terms/mcdonough-power-equipment-inc-v-greenwood"
type: "key-term"
subject: "Civil Procedure"
unit: "Unit 9"
---

# McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood

## Definition

McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood is a Civil Procedure case on when a court can grant a new trial because of newly discovered evidence. The party asking for relief must show the evidence was not reasonably discoverable before trial and could change the result.

## What It Is

McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood is a Civil Procedure case that explains when newly discovered evidence is enough to support a motion for a new trial. The basic rule is simple: you do not get a second trial just because you found something new after the verdict. You have to show the evidence could not have been found earlier with reasonable diligence and that it is serious enough to matter to the outcome.

That second part matters a lot. Courts do not grant a new trial for evidence that is merely repetitive, minor, or just helpful in the margins. The evidence has to be material, meaning it goes to a real issue in the case, and it has to be likely to produce a different result if the case is tried again.

This case fits into the post-trial stage of litigation, when the losing party is trying to undo a verdict. Civil Procedure treats that request cautiously because courts want finality. If every disappointed party could reopen a case after judgment, litigation would never really end.

McDonough also reflects the judge’s gatekeeping role. A judge does not simply ask, “Is the evidence new?” The judge asks whether the party acted with reasonable diligence before trial and whether the evidence is strong enough to justify disturbing the verdict. That means the motion is not a backup plan for sloppy preparation.

A good way to think about it is this: the case draws a line between truly hidden evidence and evidence that was technically available if the party had investigated harder. If the evidence was sitting there all along and could have been uncovered through normal pretrial work, McDonough says that usually is not enough.

In a class example, imagine a party later finds a document showing the other side’s witness had a direct financial conflict that was hidden during trial. If that conflict could not reasonably have been discovered earlier and it would likely change the jury’s view of the witness, McDonough gives the court a framework for considering a new trial.

## Why It Matters

McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood shows how Civil Procedure balances fairness against finality. After a trial ends, the system does not want endless do-overs, but it also cannot ignore genuinely important evidence that was hidden or unknowable before judgment.

The case gives you a practical standard for motions based on newly discovered evidence. Instead of arguing only that the new material would have helped, you have to work through two questions: could you have found it earlier with reasonable diligence, and would it probably change the result? That structure shows up in post-trial motion analysis and in case discussions about judicial discretion.

It also helps you see why judges are cautious about reopening verdicts. A court needs more than a disappointed party’s claim that “we found something new.” The evidence has to be strong enough to justify the cost of another trial, the strain on the parties, and the hit to the finality of judgment.

For Civil Procedure students, this case is a clean example of how post-trial motions are not just about error. They are about whether the legal system should reopen a finished case when the facts shift in a meaningful way.

## Connections

### Newly Discovered Evidence

McDonough is one of the main cases students use when analyzing this ground for a new trial. The focus is not just on whether the evidence is new, but whether it was unavailable despite reasonable diligence and whether it would probably affect the verdict. That keeps the analysis tied to both fairness and finality.

### Motion for New Trial

This case sits inside the broader doctrine of post-trial motions. A motion for new trial can be based on several problems, including evidence, juror misconduct, or legal error, but McDonough gives the rules for the newly discovered evidence category. If you see a fact pattern after judgment, this is often the case to remember.

### [Judicial Discretion](/civil-procedure/key-terms/judicial-discretion)

McDonough shows how much room judges have when deciding whether to reopen a case. Even when a party points to new evidence, the court still evaluates diligence, materiality, and likely effect on the result. That means the judge is not mechanically applying a checklist, but weighing whether another trial is justified.

### [harmless error doctrine](/civil-procedure/key-terms/harmless-error-doctrine)

Both doctrines deal with not overturning a result for a defect that does not really matter. Harmless error focuses on mistakes that happened during trial, while McDonough focuses on evidence discovered afterward. In both settings, the court asks whether the problem was serious enough to justify a new proceeding.

## On the AP Exam

A case brief question or issue-spotter will usually give you a verdict, then add a new fact that turns up later, like an undisclosed document or hidden witness conflict. Your job is to identify McDonough, state the two-part test, and explain whether the moving party exercised reasonable diligence and whether the evidence is material enough to change the result.

In a short-answer or essay prompt, use the case to organize the post-trial analysis instead of just saying “new evidence exists.” Say why the evidence was not reasonably discoverable before trial, then assess whether it is cumulative or truly outcome-changing. If the facts make the new evidence weak or repetitive, explain why the motion should fail even though the evidence is technically new.

## McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood vs harmless error doctrine

These can look similar because both involve deciding whether a mistake matters enough to affect the judgment. McDonough deals with evidence found after trial and asks whether that evidence justifies a new trial. Harmless error doctrine deals with errors made during the trial and asks whether the mistake was likely harmless or prejudicial.

## Key Takeaways

- McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood sets the standard for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence in Civil Procedure.
- The party seeking a new trial has to show that the evidence could not have been found earlier with reasonable diligence.
- The new evidence must be material, not just cumulative or slightly helpful, and it must likely affect the outcome.
- The case reflects the tension between fairness and finality, since courts do not want to reopen every finished case.
- When you see this case in a fact pattern, look for a post-trial motion and ask whether the new evidence really changes the story.

## FAQs

### What is McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood in Civil Procedure?

It is a case about when a court can grant a new trial because of newly discovered evidence. The moving party has to show the evidence was not reasonably discoverable before trial and that it is significant enough to matter to the verdict.

### What does newly discovered evidence mean here?

It means evidence found after trial that could not have been discovered earlier through reasonable diligence. The court usually will not reopen a case for evidence that was available all along or could have been uncovered with better preparation.

### How is McDonough different from harmless error doctrine?

McDonough is about post-trial evidence that comes to light after judgment, while harmless error doctrine is about mistakes that happened during the trial itself. Both doctrines ask whether the problem is serious enough to change the result, but they apply at different stages.

### How do you use McDonough in a Civil Procedure essay?

Use it when a fact pattern shows a party seeking a new trial based on evidence found after the verdict. Explain the diligence requirement first, then analyze whether the evidence is material and likely to produce a different outcome.

## Related Study Guides

- [9.3 Motions for New Trial](/civil-procedure/unit-9/motions-trial/study-guide/zsHsp8UzvVOQEiAo)

## About This Document

Canonical Fiveable pages are available as Markdown at the same path plus `.md`.

- [llms.txt](https://fiveable.me/llms.txt): index of Fiveable's sections and URL patterns
- [llms-full.txt](https://fiveable.me/llms-full.txt): complete subject and unit listing
- [MCP server](https://fiveable.me/mcp): call Fiveable as tools instead of fetching pages (`https://fiveable.me/api/mcp`)
- [MCP server for AP teachers](https://fiveable.me/mcp/teachers): a teacher's classes, assignments and AP-rubric grading (`https://fiveable.me/api/mcp/teacher`)

## Structured Data

```json
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"LearningResource","@id":"https://fiveable.me/civil-procedure/key-terms/mcdonough-power-equipment-inc-v-greenwood#resource","name":"McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-procedure/key-terms/mcdonough-power-equipment-inc-v-greenwood","learningResourceType":"Concept explainer","educationalLevel":"AP® / High School","about":{"@id":"https://fiveable.me/civil-procedure/key-terms/mcdonough-power-equipment-inc-v-greenwood#term"},"audience":{"@type":"EducationalAudience","educationalRole":"student"},"dateModified":"2026-07-03T02:20:51.025Z","isPartOf":{"@type":"Collection","name":"Civil Procedure Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-procedure/key-terms"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Fiveable","url":"https://fiveable.me"}},{"@type":"DefinedTerm","@id":"https://fiveable.me/civil-procedure/key-terms/mcdonough-power-equipment-inc-v-greenwood#term","name":"McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood","description":"McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood is a Civil Procedure case on when a court can grant a new trial because of newly discovered evidence. The party asking for relief must show the evidence was not reasonably discoverable before trial and could change the result.","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-procedure/key-terms/mcdonough-power-equipment-inc-v-greenwood","inDefinedTermSet":{"@type":"DefinedTermSet","name":"Civil Procedure Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-procedure/key-terms"}},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What is McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood in Civil Procedure?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"It is a case about when a court can grant a new trial because of newly discovered evidence. The moving party has to show the evidence was not reasonably discoverable before trial and that it is significant enough to matter to the verdict."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What does newly discovered evidence mean here?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"It means evidence found after trial that could not have been discovered earlier through reasonable diligence. The court usually will not reopen a case for evidence that was available all along or could have been uncovered with better preparation."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How is McDonough different from harmless error doctrine?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"McDonough is about post-trial evidence that comes to light after judgment, while harmless error doctrine is about mistakes that happened during the trial itself. Both doctrines ask whether the problem is serious enough to change the result, but they apply at different stages."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How do you use McDonough in a Civil Procedure essay?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Use it when a fact pattern shows a party seeking a new trial based on evidence found after the verdict. Explain the diligence requirement first, then analyze whether the evidence is material and likely to produce a different outcome."}}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Civil Procedure","item":"https://fiveable.me/civil-procedure"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Key Terms","item":"https://fiveable.me/civil-procedure/key-terms"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Unit 9","item":"https://fiveable.me/civil-procedure/unit-9"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood"}]}]}
```