In the case of Chad Weisgram et al. v. Marley Company et al., 1999, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a federal appellate court has the authority to direct entry of judgment for defendant when plaintiff's evidence is deemed insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). The case revolved around a wrongful death claim filed by Weisgram on behalf of his deceased mother against Marley Co., alleging that one of their products caused her fatal house fire. At trial, expert testimonies were presented supporting this claim and resulted in a favorable verdict for Weisgram. However, upon appeal by Marley Co., these testimonies were found unreliable and excluded from evidence consideration leading to reversal in favor of defendants due to lack sufficient proof without them. Rather than remanding for new trial as traditionally done after such reversals, Eighth Circuit directed entry judgement for defendants citing rule 50(a) which allows courts to render judgement contrary to jury verdict if there was legally insufficient evidentiary basis making it unreasonable for jury reach such conclusion.

In the dissenting opinion for Chad Weisgram, et al. v. Marley Company, et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to order a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) after an appellate court has excluded certain evidence was inappropriate and unprecedented. He contended that it is not within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to make such decisions about evidentiary sufficiency in civil cases; instead, this responsibility lies with trial courts or juries who have firsthand access to witness testimonies and other forms of evidence presented during trials. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's view on expert testimony exclusion as overly rigid and potentially harmful for future litigants by setting a precedent where appeals courts can exclude crucial pieces of evidence without providing plaintiffs another opportunity to present their case before a jury.