A motion for new trial on the grounds that the jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence normally involves a review of the facts presented at trial. Welch v. Cabelka, 301 Fed. Appx. 825, 829 (10th Cir. 2008). Even if the Court does not necessarily agree with the jury verdict, the Court must uphold it unless the moving party meets the heavy burden of showing that it is "clearly, decidedly or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence."
This contention fails because the instruction as a whole-and Instruction 12 in particular- accurately stated the governing law. See United States v. Sorensen, 801 F.3d 1217, 1228-29 (10th Cir. 2015); Welch v. Cabelka, 301 Fed.Appx. 825, 831 (10th Cir. 2008) (“There can be no error when a review of the jury instructions shows that the district court properly stated the applicable law.”).
"Upon review of a motion for a new trial, all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party." Welch v. Cabelka, 301 F. App'x 825, 829 (10th Cir. 2008), citing Escue v. Northern Oklahoma College, 450 F. 3d 1146, 1156 (10th Cir. 2006). Where the motion for new trial or alteration of the judgment is based on the contention that a damages assessment is incorrect, the court "`will not disturb a jury's finding on damages [in a civil trial] unless it is so unreasonable as to shock the judicial conscience and to raise an irresistible inference that passion, prejudice, corruption or other improper cause invaded the trial.'"