To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Kinserlow v. CMI Corp., Bid-Well Div.

Powered by
Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff sued Defendant for personal injuries after he fell from a workbridge he believed Defendant manufactured.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

In a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the nonmoving party is only entitled to the benefit of reasonable inferences.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

In concluding that no rational trier of fact could have found that petitioner was fired because of his age, the Court of Appeals impermissibly substituted its judgment concerning the weight of the evidence for the jury's.

View Full Point of Law

Kinserlow (Plaintiff), a cement mason, sued CMI Corporation, Bid-Well Division (Defendant) for personal injuries after he fell from a workbridge presumably manufactured by the Defendant. Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50, on the basis that they did not manufacture the workbridge.


Is judgment as a matter of law proper when a court finds no reasonable inference favoring the position of the nonmoving party?


Yes, judgment as a matter of law is proper. The district court is affirmed.


The Court determined that the evidence did not support a reasonable inference that Defendant had manufactured the workbridge.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following