Connection lost
Server error
Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A party lost a jury verdict but failed to file a post-verdict motion challenging the evidence. The Supreme Court held this failure forfeits the right to appeal the sufficiency of the evidence, stripping the appellate court of power to review the claim.
Legal Significance: This case establishes a strict procedural rule: to preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge for appeal, a party must file a post-verdict motion under FRCP 50(b). A pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion alone is insufficient to preserve the issue.
Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. sued Swift-Eckrich, Inc. (ConAgra) for antitrust violations. At the close of evidence in a jury trial, ConAgra moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), arguing the evidence was legally insufficient. The district court denied the motion and submitted the case to the jury, which returned a verdict for Unitherm. Critically, ConAgra did not renew its motion for JMOL under Rule 50(b) after the verdict, nor did it move for a new trial on liability under Rule 59. On appeal, ConAgra again challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, applying Tenth Circuit law, found that it could review the claim despite the absence of a Rule 50(b) motion. Concluding the evidence was insufficient, the appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether an appellate court may consider a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim absent a post-verdict motion.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a party’s failure to file a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) foreclose appellate review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence?
Yes. A party’s failure to file a post-verdict motion under Rule 50(b) Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a party’s failure to file a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) foreclose appellate review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence?
Conclusion
This decision establishes a bright-line procedural rule, making a post-verdict Rule 50(b) Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore e
Legal Rule
To preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for appellate Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit es
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court's analysis focused on the plain language of Rule 50 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A party must file a post-verdict motion under FRCP 50(b) to