Legal Definitions - N.O.V.

N.O.V. is an acronym for the Latin phrase non obstante veredicto, which translates to "notwithstanding the verdict."

In legal terms, an N.O.V. refers to a judge's decision to overturn or set aside a jury's verdict. This occurs when the judge concludes that the jury's decision was not reasonably supported by the evidence presented during the trial or by the applicable legal principles. Essentially, the judge determines that, despite what the jury decided, the law and the facts presented dictate a different outcome. Granting a motion for an N.O.V. means the court believes it should have directed the jury to reach an opposite verdict in the first place, or that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict it did based on the evidence.

Here are some examples illustrating how an N.O.V. might apply:

• Civil Case - Insufficient Evidence for Plaintiff:

  Imagine a product liability lawsuit where a jury awards a large sum of money to a plaintiff who claimed injury from a defective product. However, during the trial, the plaintiff failed to present any credible expert testimony or scientific evidence directly linking their injury to the product's alleged defect. The defense attorney files a motion for N.O.V.

  Explanation: The judge might grant the N.O.V., reversing the jury's award, because even though the jury sympathized with the plaintiff, there was insufficient legal evidence presented to reasonably establish a causal link between the product and the injury. The jury's verdict was not supported by the facts required by law.

• Civil Case - Lack of Legal Basis for Defendant's Liability:

  Consider a breach of contract case where a jury finds a small business liable for failing to deliver goods, awarding damages to the plaintiff. However, the judge reviews the evidence and realizes that the plaintiff never actually proved the existence of a legally binding contract in the first place (e.g., no signed agreement, no clear offer and acceptance). The defense moves for an N.O.V.

  Explanation: The judge could issue an N.O.V., overturning the jury's finding of liability. Despite the jury's decision, the fundamental legal requirement for a valid contract was not met by the plaintiff's evidence, meaning the defendant could not legally be held responsible for breaching something that didn't exist.

• Criminal Case - Unreasonable Guilty Verdict:

  In a criminal trial for assault, a jury convicts the defendant. However, the judge notes that the prosecution's entire case rested on the testimony of a single witness whose account was repeatedly contradicted by all other evidence, including security footage and multiple other witnesses. The defense attorney files a motion for N.O.V.

  Explanation: The judge might grant the N.O.V., setting aside the guilty verdict. The judge would conclude that, given the overwhelming contradictory evidence, no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the unreliable testimony presented. The verdict was not reasonably supported by the facts.