In McCoy v. Hearst Corp. (1991) 227 Cal. App. 3d 1657, the California Supreme Court had reversed the first judgment without directions, for insufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of actual malice for libel under the New York Times rule. (McCoy, supra, 227 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1657, citing New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254.) On remand, when the trial court entered judgment for the defendants and dismissed the action, the plaintiffs appealed, maintaining they were entitled to a new trial. (McCoy at p. 1659.) In upholding the trial court, the court in McCoy noted: "When the plaintiff has had full and fair opportunity to present the case, and the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support plaintiff's cause of action, a judgment for defendant is required and no new trial is ordinarily allowed, save for newly discovered evidence. . . . It is anomalous to end the case when the trial court correctly enters a nonsuit or JNOV on the ground that the plaintiff has, as a matter of law, failed to prove a cause of action, but to allow plaintiff another trial when the appellate court makes the same determination, since the standard applied by the respective courts is virtually identical. " (McCoy, supra, 227 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1661.) The court in McCoy, supra, 227 Cal. App. 3d 1657, further explained that a new trial under such circumstances as presented when there was a reversal for legally insufficient evidence would only be permitted for newly discovered evidence and that the matter was governed by the law of the case doctrine. (Id. at pp. 1661-1662.) It concluded that "retrying the case in McCoy on the same evidence is a needless exercise, since the law of the case would compel another decision for the defense." (Id. at p. 1662.)