This Note examines the language and purposes of rule 50 to determine if and when a relaxed application of its requirements is appropriate. Part I considers the terms and goal of the rule and concludes that its purpose is to put the party opposing the motion for judgment as a matter of law on notice of the movant\u27s assertion that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, and to provide the opposing party an opportunity to cure. Part II discusses courts\u27 varying application of the requirement that a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the evidence precede a renewal of such a motion after the jury has returned its verdict. Part III analyzes the approaches and argues that, given the purpose behind rule...