Majority — Ginsburg J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the respective authority of federal trial and appellate courts to decide whether, as a matter of law, judgment should be entered in favor of a verdict loser. The pattern we confront is this. Plaintiff in a product liability action gains a jury verdict. Defendant urges, unsuccessfully before the federal district court but successfully on appeal, that expert testimony plaintiff introduced was unreliable, and therefore inadmissible, under the analysis required by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993). Shorn of the erroneously admitted expert testimony, the record evidence is insufficient to justify a plaintiff’s verdict. May the court of appeals then instruct the entry of judgment as a matter of law for defendant, or must that tribunal remand the ease, leaving to the district court’s discretion the choice between final judgment for defendant or a new trial of plaintiff’s case?
Our decision is guided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, which governs the entry of judgment as a matter of law, and by the Court’s pathmarking opinion in Neely v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 386 U. S. 317 (1967). As Neely teaches, courts of appeals should “be constantly alert” to “the trial judge’s first-hand knowledge of witnesses, testimony, and issues”; in other words, appellate courts should give due consideration to the first-instance decisionmaker’s “ Teel’ for the overall case.” Id., at 325 . But the court of appeals has authority to render the final decision. If, in the particular
I
Firefighters arrived at the home of Bonnie Weisgram on December 30, 1993, to discover flames around the front entrance. Upon entering the home, they found Weisgram in an upstairs bathroom, dead of carbon monoxide poisoning. Her son, petitioner Chad Weisgram, individually and on behalf of Bonnie Weisgram’s heirs, brought a diversity action in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota seeking wrongful death damages. He alleged that a defect in an electric baseboard heater, manufactured by defendant (now respondent) Marley Company and located inside the door to Bonnie Weisgram’s home, caused both the fire and his mother’s death.[1]
1 At trial and on appeal, the suit of the Weisgram heirs was consolidated with an action brought against Marley Company by State Farm Fire and Casually Company, insurer of the Weisgram home, to recover benefits State Farm paid for the damage to the Weisgram townhouse and an adjoining townhouse. State Farm was dismissed from the appeal after certio-rari was granted. For purposes of this opinion, we generally refer to the plaintiffs below, and to the petitioners before us, simply as “Weisgram.”
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that Marley’s motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted. 169 F. 3d 514 , 517 (1999). Writing for the panel majority, Chief Judge Bowman first examined the testimony of Weisgram’s expert witnesses, the sole evidence supporting plaintiffs’ produet defect charge. Id., at 518-522 . Concluding that the testimony was speculative and not shown to be scientifically sound, the majority held the expert evidence incompetent to prove Weisgram’s ease. Ibid. The court then considered the remaining evidence in the light most favorable to Weisgram, found it insufficient to support the jury verdict, and directed judgment as a matter of law for Marley. Id., at 516-517, 521-522 . In a footnote, the majority “reject[ed] any contention that [it was] required to remand for a new trial.” Id., at 517, n. 2 . It recognized its
Courts of Appeals have divided on the question whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 permits an appellate court to direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law when it determines that evidence was erroneously admitted at trial and that the remaining, properly admitted evidence is insufficient to constitute a submissible ease.[2] We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 527 U. S. 1069 (1999),[3] and we now affirm the Eighth Circuit’s judgment.
2 The Tenth Circuit has held it inappropriate for an appellate court to direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law based on the trial court’s erroneous admission of evidence, because to do so would be unfair to a party who relied on the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. See Kinser v. Gehl Co., 184 F. 3d 1259 , 1267, 1269 (1999). The Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits recently have issued decisions, in accord with the position earlier advanced by the Third Circuit, directing the entry of judgment as a matter of law based on proof rendered insufficient by the deletion of improperly admitted evidence. See Redman v. John D. Brush & Co., 111 F. 3d 1174 , 1178-1179 (CA4 1997); Smelser v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., 105 F. 3d 299 , 301, 306 (CA6 1997); Wright v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 91 F. 3d 1105 , 1108 (CA8 1996); accord, Aloe Coal Co. v. Clark Equipment Co., 816 F. 2d 110 , 115-116 (CA3 1987).
3 We agreed to decide only the issue of the authority of a court of appeals to direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law, and accordingly accept as final the decision of the Eighth Circuit holding the testimony of Weis-gram’s experts unreliable, and therefore inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as explicated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993). We also accept as final the Eighth Circuit’s *447 determination that the remaining, properly admitted, evidence was insufficient to make a submissible case under state law.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, reproduced below, governs motions for judgment as a matter of law in jury trials.[4]
4 “Rule 50. Judgment as a Matter of Law in Jury Trials; Alternative Motion for New Trial; Conditional Rulings. “(a) Judgment as a Matter of Law. “(1) If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue. “(2) Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before submission of the case to the jury. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to the judgment. “(b) Renewing Motion for Judgment after Trial; Alternative Motion for New Trial. If, for any reason, the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the evidence, the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. The movant may renew its request for judgment as a matter of law by filing a motion no later than 10 days after entry of judgment — and may alternatively request a new trial or join a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on a renewed motion, the court may: “(1) if a verdict was returned: “(A) allow the judgment to stand, “(B) order a new trial, or “(C) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law; or “(2) if no verdict was returned: “(A) order a new trial, or “(B) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law. “(c) Granting Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; Conditional Rulings; New Trial Motion. “(1) If the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted, the court shall also rule on the motion for a new trial, if any, by determining whether it should be granted if the judgment is thereafter vacated or *448 reversed, and shall specify the grounds for granting or denying the motion for the new trial. If the motion for a new trial is thus conditionally granted, the order thereon does not affect the finality of the judgment. In case the motion for a new trial has been conditionally granted and the judgment is reversed on appeal, the new trial shall proceed unless the appellate court has otherwise ordered. In case the motion for a new trial has been conditionally denied, the appellee on appeal may assert error in that denial; and if the judgment is reversed on appeal, subsequent proceedings shall be in accordance with the order of the appellate court. "(2) Any motion for a new trial under Rule 59 by a party against whom judgment as a matter of law is rendered shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment. “(d) Same: Denial of Motion for Judgment as a MatteR op Law. If the motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied, the party who prevailed on that motion may, as appellee, assert grounds entitling the party to a new trial in the event the appellate court concludes that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, nothing in this rule precludes it from determining that the appellee is entitled to a new trial, or from directing the trial court to determine whether a new trial shall be granted.”
“[T]he party who prevailed on that motion may, as ap-pellee, assert grounds entitling the party to a new trial in the event the appellate court concludes that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, nothing in this rule precludes it from determining that the appellee is entitled to a new trial, or from directing the trial court to determine whether a new trial shall be granted.”
Under this Rule, Weisgram urges, when a court of appeals determines that a jury verdict cannot be sustained due to
In a series of pre-1967 decisions, this Court refrained from deciding the question, while emphasizing the importance of giving the party deprived of a verdict the opportunity to invoke the discretion of the trial judge to grant a new trial. See Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U. S. 212 , 216-218 (1947); Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman, 332 U. S. 571 , 573-574 (1948); Johnson v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 344 U. S. 48 , 54, n. 3 (1952); see also 9A Wright & Miller § 2540, at 370. Then, in Neely, the Court reviewed its prior jurisprudence and ruled definitively that if a motion for judgment as a matter of law is erroneously denied by the district court, the appellate court does have the power to order the entry of judgment for the moving party. 386 U. S., at 326 ; see also Louis, Post-Verdict Rulings on the Sufficiency of the Evidence: Neely v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co. Revisited, 1975 Wis. L. Rev. 503 (surveying chronologically Court’s decisions bearing on appellate direction of judgment as a matter of law).
Neely first addressed the compatibility of appellate direction of judgment as a matter of law (then styled “judgment n.o.v.”) with the Seventh Amendment’s jury trial guarantee. It was settled, the Court pointed out, that a trial court, pur
5 According to the Advisory Committee Notes to the 1963 Rule 50 amendments, this "omission” was not inadvertent: “Subdivision (d) does not attempt a regulation of all aspects of the procedure where the motion for judgment n.o.v. and any accompanying motion for a new trial are denied, since the problems have not been fully canvassed in the decisions and the procedure is in some respects still in a formative stage. It is, however, designed to give guidance on certain important features of the practice.” Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 50(d), 28 U. S. C. App., p. 769.
Neely represents no volte-face in the Court’s understanding of the respective competences of trial and appellate forums. Immediately after declaring that appellate courts have the power to order the entry of judgment for a verdict loser, the Court cautioned:
6 Section 2106 reads: “The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review, and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.”
“Part of the Court’s concern has been to protect the rights of the party whose jury verdict has been set aside on appeal and who may have valid grounds for a new trial, some or all of which should be passed upon by the district court, rather than the court of appeals, because of the trial judge’s first-hand knowledge of witnesses, testimony, and issues — because of his ‘feel’ for the overall case. These are very valid concerns to which the court of appeals should be constantly alert.” 386 U. S., at 325 .[7]
Nevertheless, the Court in Neely continued, due consideration of the rights of the verdict winner and the closeness of the trial court to the case “do[es] not justify an ironclad rule that the court of appeals should never order dismissal or judgment for the defendant when the plaintiff’s verdict has been set aside on appeal.” Id., at 326 . “Such a rule,” the Court concluded, “would not serve the purpose of Rule 50 to speed litigation and to avoid unnecessary retrials.” Ibid. Neely ultimately clarified that if a court of appeals determines that the district court erroneously denied a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the appellate court may (1) order a new trial at the verdict winner’s request or on its own motion, (2) remand the ease for the trial court to decide whether a new trial or entry of judgment for the defendant is warranted, or (3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter
7 Iacurci v. Lummus Co., 387 U.S. 86 (1967) (per curiam), decided shortly after Neely, is illustrative. There, the Court reversed the appellate court’s direction of the entry of judgment as a matter of law for the defendant and instructed the appeals court to remand the case to the trial court for a new trial determination; the Court pointed to the jury’s failure to respond to four out of five special interrogatories, which left issues of negligence unresolved, and concluded that in the particular circumstances, the trial judge “was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence, his charge to the jury, and the jury’s verdict and interrogatory answers.” 387 U. S., at 88 .
III
The parties before us — and Court of Appeals opinions— diverge regarding Neely’s scope. Weisgram, in line with some appellate decisions, posits a distinction between cases in which judgment as a matter of law is requested based on plaintiffs failure to produce enough evidence to warrant a jury verdict, as in Neely, and eases in which the proof introduced becomes insufficient because the court of appeals determines that certain evidence should not have been admitted, as in the instant ease.[8] Insufficiency caused by deletion of evidence, Weisgram contends, requires an “automatic remand” to the district court for consideration whether a new trial is warranted. Brief for Petitioner 20, 22; Reply Brief 1, 3-6; Tr. of Oral Arg. 6, 18, 23.[9]
8 See Tr. of Oral Arg. 6, 8, 17-18, 23, 26-28, 31; Reply Brief 3-6; Brief for Respondents 24-29. Compare, e. g., Redman, 111 F. 3d, at 1178-1179 (treating judgment as a matter of law based on insufficiency caused by admission error identically to initial insufficiency); Smelser, 105 F. 3d, at 301, 306 (same); Wright, 91 F. 3d, at 1108 (same); Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F. 3d 1153 , 1198-1200 (CA3 1993) (rejecting distinction), with Kinser, 184 F. 3d, at 1267, 1269 (insufficiency caused by admission error inappropriate basis for judgment as a matter of law); Jackson v. Pleasant Grove Health Care Center, 980 F. 2d 692 , 695-696 (CA11 1993) (same); Douglass v. Eaton Corp., 956 F. 2d 1339 , 1343-1344 (GA6 1992) (same); Midcontinent Broadcasting Co. v. North Central Airlines, Inc., 471 F. 2d 357 , 358-359 (CA8 1973) (same).
9 Weisgram misreads the Court’s decision in Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U. S. 243 (1940), to support his position. Reply Brief 3-4; Tr. of Oral Arg. 19. The Court in Montgomery Ward directed that a trial judge who grants the verdict loser’s motion for judgment n.o.v. should also rule conditionally on that party’s alternative motion for a new trial. 311 U. S., at 253-254 . The conditional ruling would be reviewed by the court of appeals only if it reversed the entry of judgment n.o.v. Proceeding in this manner would avoid protracting the proceedings by obviating the *453 need for multiple appeals. See id. at 253 . Rule 50 was amended in 1963 to codify Montgomery Ward’s instruction. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 50(c)(1). In the course of its elaboration, the Montgomery Ward Court observed that a “motion for judgment cannot be granted unless, as a matter of law, the opponent of the movant Mled to make a case.” 311 U. S., at 251 . In contrast, the Court stated, a new trial motion may invoke the court’s discretion, bottomed on such standard new trial grounds as “the verdict is against the weight of the evidence,” or “the damages are excessive,” or substantial errors were made “in admission or rejection of evidence.” Ibid; see also id, at 249. Many rulings on evidence, of course, do not bear dispositively on the adequacy of the proof to support a verdict. For example, the evidence erroneously admitted or excluded may strengthen or weaken one side’s case without being conclusive as to the litigation’s outcome. Or, the evidence may abundantly support a jury’s verdict, but one or another item may have been unduly prejudicial to the verdict loser and excludable on that account. See Fed. Rule Evid. 403 (relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice”). Such run-of-the-mine, ordinarily nondispositive, evidentiary rulings, we take it, were the sort contemplated in Montgomery Ward. Cf. 311 U. S., at 245-246 (indicating that sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges are properly raised by motion for judgment, while other rulings on evidence may be assigned as grounds for a new trial).
As Neely recognized, appellate rulings on post-trial pleas for judgment as a matter of law call for the exercise of “informed discretion,” 386 U. S., at 329 , and fairness to the parties is surely key to the exercise of that discretion. But fairness concerns should loom as large when the verdict winner, in the appellate court’s judgment, failed to present sufficient evidence as when the appellate court declares inadmissible record evidence essential to the verdict winner’s case. In both situations, the party whose verdict is set aside on appeal will have had notice, before the close of evidence, of the alleged evidentiary deficiency. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 50(a)(2) (motion for judgment as a matter of law “shall specify .. . the law and facts on which the moving party is entitled to the judgment”). On appeal, both will have the opportunity to argue in support of the jury’s verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial. And if judgment is instructed for
10 Weisgram additionally urges that the Seventh Amendment prohibits a court of appeals from directing judgment as a matter of law on a record different from the one considered by the jury. Brief for Petitioner 20-22; Reply Brief 6-8. Neely made dear that a court of appeals may order entry of judgment as a matter of law on suffidency-of-the-evidence grounds without violating the Seventh Amendment. 386 U. S., at 321-322 . Entering judgment for the verdict loser when all of the evidence was properly before the jury is scarcely less destructive of the jury’s verdict than is entry of such a judgment based on a record made insufficient by the removal of evidence the jury should not have had before it.
Since Daubert, moreover, parties relying on expert evidence have had notice of the exacting standards of reliability such evidence must meet. 509 U. S. 579 ; see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U. S. 137 (1999) (rendered shortly after the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Weisgram’s case);[12] General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U. S. 136 (1997). It is implausible to suggest, post-Daubert, that parties will initially present less than their best expert evidence in the expectation of a second chance should their first try fail. We therefore find unconvincing Weisgram’s fears that allowing courts of appeals to direct the entry of judgment for defend
11 We recognize that it is awkward for an appellee, who is wholeheartedly urging the correctness of the verdict, to point out, in the alternative, grounds for a new trial. See Kaplan, Amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1961-1963 (II), 77 Harv. L. Rev. 801 , 819 (1964) (“A verdict winner may suffer forensic embarrassment in arguing for a new trial on his own behalf, faute de mieux, while seeking to defend his verdict against all attacks by his opponent.”). A petition for rehearing in the court of appeals, however, involves no conflicting tugs. We are not persuaded by Weisgram’s objection that the 14 days allowed for the filing of a petition for rehearing is insufficient time to formulate compelling grounds for a new trial. Reply Brief 15-16. This time period is longer than the ten days allowed a verdict winner to move for a new trial after a trial court grants judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 50(c)(2). Nor do we foreclose the possibility that a court of appeals might properly deny a petition for rehearing because it pressed an argument that plainly could have been formulated in a party’s brief See Louis, Post-Verdict Rulings on the Sufficiency of the Evidence: Neely v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co. Revisited, 1975 Wis. L. Rev. 503 , 519-520, n. 90 (“[IJt is often difficult to argue that a gap in one’s proof can be filled before a court has held that the gap exists ....” On the other hand, “the brief or oral argument will suffice ... when the area of the alleged evidentiary insufficiency has previously been clearly identified.” (citation omitted)).
12 We note that the decision in Kwmho is consistent with Eighth Circuit precedent existing at the time of trial in Weisgram’s case. See, e.g., Peitzmeier v. Hennessy Industries, Inc., 97 F. 3d 293 , 297 (CA8 1996).
After holding Weisgram’s expert testimony inadmissible, the Court of Appeals evaluated the evidence presented at trial, viewing it in the light most favorable to Weisgram, and found the properly admitted evidence insufficient to support the verdict. 169 F. 3d, at 516-517 . Weisgram offered no specific grounds for a new trial to the Eighth Circuit.[13] Even in the petition for rehearing, Weisgram argued only that the appellate court had misapplied state law, did not have the authority to direct judgment, and had failed to give adequate deference to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. App. 131-151. The Eighth Circuit concluded that this was “not a close case.” 169 F. 3d, at 517, n. 2 . In these circumstances, the Eighth Circuit did not abuse its discretion by directing entry of judgment for Marley, instead of returning the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
* * *
Neely recognized that there are myriad situations in which the determination whether a new trial is in order is best made by the trial judge. 386 U. S., at 325-326 . Neely held,
18 Cf. Neely v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 386 U. S. 317 , 327 (1967) (observing that it would not be dear that litigation should be terminated for evidentiary insuffidency when, for example, the trial court exduded evidence that would have strengthened the verdict winner’s case or “itself caused the insuffidency ... by erroneously [imposing] too high a burden of proof”).
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is
Affirmed.
Cases cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U. S. 579 p. 443, p. 445, p. 455
- Neely v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co. 386 U. S. 317 at 325, at 326, at 321, at 322, at 322-330, at 327-330, at 329, at 325-326 p. 443, p. 449, p. 450, p. 451, p. 452, p. 454, p. 456, p. 457
- 169 F. 3d 514 169 F. 3d 514 at 518-522, at 516-517, at 517, at 522 p. 445, p. 446
- 471 F. 2d 357 471 F. 2d 357 p. 446, p. 453
- 527 U. S. 1069 527 U. S. 1069 p. 446
- Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. 330 U. S. 212 p. 449
- Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman 332 U. S. 571 p. 449
- Johnson v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad 344 U. S. 48 p. 449
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan 311 U. S. 243 p. 450
- Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman 295 U. S. 654 p. 450
- 184 F. 3d 1259 184 F. 3d 1259 at 1269 p. 453
- 120 F. 3d 991 120 F. 3d 991 p. 453
- 980 F. 2d 692 980 F. 2d 692 p. 453
- 4 F. 3d 1153 4 F. 3d 1153 p. 453
- Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 509 U. S. 209 p. 454
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 526 U. S. 137 p. 455
- General Electric Co. v. Joiner 522 U. S. 136 p. 455
- Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation 497 U. S. 871 p. 456