While Toshiba expected to file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and an appeal if necessary to overturn the jury verdict, Toshiba settled to avoid the inconvenience associated with further prolonged litigation.
What does MJG stand for?
MJG stands for Motion for Judgment (legal motion)
This definition appears rarely and is found in the following Acronym Finder categories:
- Military and Government
See other definitions of MJG
We have 3 other meanings of MJG in our Acronym Attic
- Mineola Junior Fire Department (Mineola, NY)
- Maine Jewish Film Festival (Portland, ME)
- Michael J. Fox Foundation (for Parkinson's Research)
- Mundelein Junior Football League (Illinois)
- Mark Joyner Farewell Package
- Managed Job Factory Service
- Marks Jacobson Financial Services (UK)
- Mark James Group
- Max Jean-Gilles (football)
- Miller Japanese Garden (California State University, Long Beach)
- Mexican Junior Golf Association (Mexico)
- Metropolitan Jewish Geriatric Center (a Metropolitan Jewish Health System facility; Brooklyn, NY)
- Metropolitan Jewish Geriatric Foundation (New York)
- Michigan Journal of Gender and Law
- Matilda J Gibson Memorial Library (Creston, IA)
- Minnesota Journal of Global Trade (now known as Minnesota Journal of International Law)
- Martha Jefferson Hospital (Charlottesville, VA)
- Melissa Joan Hart (actress)
- Middle/Junior High
- Museum of Jewish Heritage
Samples in periodicals archive:
Regarding the testimony on an appeal from the grant of a motion for judgment in accordance with a motion for a directed verdict, "appellate courts do not resolve disputes in the evidence.
The filing of a motion for a directed verdict is a prerequisite to filing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The court did grant Widman leave to renew the motion in the context of a motion for judgment of acquittal at trial.
denied motions on both sides: Allstate's motion for judgment on the pleadings on March 24 in Buente vs.
The district court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and they appealed.
Following entry of the Board's order requiring restitution, 85 Federal Reserve Bulletin 142 (1998), the court granted the Board's motion for judgment in the asset freeze action and authorized a judicial sale of the seized property.
The District Court set aside the $18,000,000 judgment in favor of SIBIA, based on a 1998 jury verdict, and vacated the injunction against Cadus, after the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the claims asserted in SIBIA's United States Patent 5,401,629 were invalid, and that the District Court erred in denying Cadus' motion for judgment as a matter of law.