A motion for a directed verdict is typically made after the opposing party has finished presenting its evidence, arguing that the evidence, even viewed favorably to that side, fails to meet the legal burden needed to support an essential element of the claim or defense.

This motion can be raised more than once during a trial, and both plaintiffs and defendants can seek it if they believe the other side has not met its evidentiary burden on a particular issue.

When deciding this type of motion, the court views all the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference the evidence could support.

A directed verdict is only granted when the court concludes that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party based on the evidence presented, which is a demanding standard that courts apply cautiously.

Summary judgment is typically decided before trial, based on the written record such as depositions, documents, and affidavits, without live testimony. A directed verdict, by contrast, occurs during the trial itself, after the jury has heard live evidence.

Because a directed verdict happens after evidence has actually been presented in court, it is generally viewed as a more informed assessment of whether a genuine factual dispute exists than an earlier summary judgment ruling might have been.

Because a directed verdict removes the jury's role in deciding the disputed issue, appellate courts often scrutinize these rulings closely to determine whether a genuine factual dispute actually existed that should have gone to the jury.

If an appellate court finds that reasonable jurors could have reached different conclusions from the evidence, it can reverse the directed verdict and send the case back for further proceedings.