Directed verdicts require courts to decide if facts permit reasonable inferences

Evidence

When a trial court grants a directed verdict in a circumstantial evidence case, the court makes a legal determination that the narrative or historical matters in evidence allow no permissible inference of the ultimate fact urged by the opposing party. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 221

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 221
• XREF: connects to: Judicial decisions are governed by beliefs about facts and rules — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 160; Circumstantial evidence must support a reasonable inference rather than mere speculation — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 222; Circumstantial evidence cannot support legal liability when resting entirely on speculation — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 237 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Circumstantial evidence must support a reasonable inference rather than mere speculation #corroborates (0.85) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 222