Legal Definitions - judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)

Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) is a legal procedure where a trial judge overturns a jury's decision and enters a different judgment in favor of the party that the jury ruled against. This happens after the jury has delivered its verdict, but before the final judgment is officially entered.

A judge will grant a JNOV if they determine that no reasonable jury, looking at the evidence presented during the trial, could have possibly reached the verdict that was given, or if the jury clearly misunderstood and misapplied the law. Essentially, a JNOV allows the judge to correct a jury's verdict that is deemed to be legally insupportable, ensuring that the outcome aligns with the evidence and the law without the need for a costly and time-consuming new trial.

While the term JNOV is still used in some state courts, the equivalent procedure in federal courts is now referred to as a Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL).

• Example 1: Insufficient Evidence for the Verdict

  Imagine a lawsuit where a company sues a former employee for stealing trade secrets. During the trial, the company presents no concrete evidence—no emails, no witness testimony, no documents—to prove that the employee actually took any secrets. Despite this complete lack of evidence, the jury inexplicably finds the former employee liable for theft.

  In this situation, the employee's attorney would likely file a motion for JNOV. The judge would review the trial record and, seeing that no reasonable jury could have concluded that trade secrets were stolen based on the evidence presented, would grant the JNOV. This would overturn the jury's verdict and rule in favor of the former employee, effectively ending the case without a new trial.

• Example 2: Verdict Contradicts Overwhelming Evidence

  Consider a personal injury case arising from a slip-and-fall incident in a grocery store. The plaintiff claims the store was negligent because of a wet floor. However, during the trial, the store presents security camera footage showing the plaintiff running, ignoring a "wet floor" sign, and slipping immediately after another customer had just spilled a drink, which store employees were already en route to clean. Multiple witnesses corroborate that the spill was recent and the sign was visible. Despite this overwhelming evidence pointing to the plaintiff's own negligence and the store's reasonable response, the jury finds the grocery store entirely at fault.

  The grocery store's legal team would move for a JNOV. The judge, recognizing that the jury's verdict is contrary to the clear and compelling evidence presented, would likely grant the motion. The judge would then enter a judgment in favor of the grocery store, concluding that no reasonable jury could have found the store liable under these circumstances.

• Example 3: Misapplication of Legal Standards

  Suppose a plaintiff sues a newspaper for libel, claiming a published article damaged their reputation. The plaintiff is a private citizen, and the law requires them to prove that the newspaper acted with negligence (failed to exercise reasonable care) in publishing false information. During the trial, the newspaper presents extensive evidence of its thorough fact-checking process, multiple sources, and attempts to contact the plaintiff for comment. The jury, perhaps confused by the legal standards, finds the newspaper liable despite the strong evidence of due diligence.

  The newspaper's attorney would file a motion for JNOV. The judge would determine that the jury misapplied the legal standard for negligence in libel cases, as the evidence clearly showed the newspaper acted reasonably. The judge would then set aside the jury's verdict and enter a judgment in favor of the newspaper, as no reasonable jury, correctly applying the law to the evidence, could have found the newspaper negligent.