RULE 59. NEW TRIALS-AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENTS
(e) Notice of Intention Not Required. It is not necessary in any case for a person intending to make a motion for a new trial to serve a notice of intention to make the motion, but a notice of hearing of the motion must be given. See Rule 6(d). {RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE}
* * * * *
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Rule 59 was amended, effective January 1, 1979; September 1, 1983; ___________________.
Rule 59 concerns the same subject matter as Rule 59, FRCivP, but is more extensive in content than the federal rule. It is derived partially from Rule 59, FRCivP, and incorporates most of Chapter 28-19, NDRC 1943.
Subdivisions (a), (e) [only the provision up to the word "but"], (f), and (g) are identical to Sections 28-1901, 28-1905, 28-1906 and 28-1907, NDRC 1943, respectively.
Subdivision (b) is identical to Section 28-1902, NDRC 1943, except for the addition to paragraph 7 of the words "when required" and the rewriting of paragraph 8 to broaden its scope.
As originally promulgated, subdivision (c) was identical to Section 28-1903, NDRC 1943. The subdivision was amended in 1983, effective September 1, 1983, to provide that the time for making a motion for a new trial is triggered by the "notice of entry of judgment." The amendment was made to eliminate any confusion that may have been caused by having the time begin with "the return of the verdict or rendition of the decision" and to ensure that a party has knowledge, through notice of entry, that a judgment has been entered, before the time to make a motion for a new trial begins to run.
As originally promulgated, subdivision (d) was identical to Section 28-1904, NDRC 1943, but was amended [effective January 1, 1979] to clarify and expand the basis of a motion for a new trial. The amendments to subdivision (d) were derived from Rule 59.02, Minn. Rules of Civ. Proc.
Subdivision (e) was amended to avoid confusing and misleading negative impressions regarding the notice of hearing on the motion for a new trial.
Subdivision (e) was repealed, effective ____________.
Subdivision (h) is derived from Rule 59(a), FRCivP, but also specifies that the court may limit a new trial to one or more issues or to the taking of additional testimony on one or more issues.
Subdivisions (i) and (j) are identical to Rules 59(d) and 59(e), FRCivP, respectively, except for the specification in subdivision (i) that the court may order a new trial on its own initiative not later than 10 days after "notice of" entry of judgment, by amendments effective September 1, 1983, and in (j) that the motion be served not later than 10 days after "notice" of entry of judgment, rather than after entry of the judgment.
SOURCES: Procedure Committee Minutes of January 25-26, 1996, page 19; September 30-October 1, 1982, page 6, and pages 8-10; April 15-16, 1982, page 8; January 17-18, 1980, page 4; November 29-30, 1979, page 18; May 25-26, 1978, pages 29-31; January 12-13, 1978, pages 12-14; June 2-3, 1977, page 5. Chapter 28-19, NDRC 1943; Rule 59, FRCivP; Rule 59.02, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.
STATUTES AFFECTED:
SUPERSEDED: Section 28-1901, 28-1902, 28-1903, 28-1904, 28-1905, 28-1906, 28-1907, NDRC 1943; 28-18-06, 28-18-09,-28-27-27, NDCC.
CROSS REFERENCE: Rules 50 (Motion for a Directed Verdict), 52 (Findings by the Court), 60 (Relief from Judgment or Order), 61 (Harmless Error) and 62 (Stay of Proceedings to Enforce a Judgment), NDRCivP; Rule 606 (Competency of Juror as Witness), NDREv.