What Is Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)?

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is a court order overturning a jury’s verdict because no reasonable jury could have reached it on the evidence. In federal court it is a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), available only if the movant first sought judgment under Rule 50(a) during trial.

This article explains what JNOV means, the standard a court applies, how it is preserved and how it differs from a new trial. The motion is one of the most powerful post-verdict tools in civil litigation, and its procedural prerequisites are strict enough that a misstep can forfeit the challenge entirely.

What Does Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) Mean?

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict means a judge sets aside a jury’s verdict and enters the opposite judgment because the evidence cannot legally support what the jury decided. The Latin phrasing, judgment “non obstante veredicto,” gives the acronym JNOV, and in federal court the modern term is the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court does not substitute its own view of the facts; it rules that no legally sufficient evidentiary basis exists for the verdict. When granted, JNOV replaces the jury’s answer with judgment for the losing party. The remedy is potent precisely because it produces a final judgment rather than a second trial, and appellate courts scrutinize such rulings closely to ensure the trial judge did not simply disagree with the jury’s weighing of the evidence.

Key features of JNOV include:

• It is a post-verdict motion, made after the jury has returned its verdict.
• In federal court the governing provision is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b).
• Many state courts retain the traditional label “JNOV” rather than the federal phrasing.
• A grant reverses the outcome without a retrial, entering judgment for the moving party.

What Is the Legal Standard for Granting a JNOV?

The standard is the same demanding test used for a directed verdict: whether the evidence, viewed favorably to the verdict winner, could allow a reasonable jury to reach that result. The court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the party who prevailed at trial and does not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. A JNOV is proper only when the evidence points so overwhelmingly in the movant’s favor that no reasonable jury could have found otherwise. Because it displaces a jury verdict, courts grant it sparingly.

• The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party — the verdict winner.
• The court does not assess credibility or resolve conflicting testimony.
• The verdict stands unless it lacks any legally sufficient evidentiary support.
• The standard is identical to that for a motion for directed verdict made during trial.

Because the test asks only whether legally sufficient evidence exists, a JNOV frequently turns on whether the party carrying the burden of proof offered any evidence on a contested element. A verdict resting on speculation, conjecture or a mere scintilla of proof cannot survive the motion, but a verdict supported by conflicting yet substantial evidence will stand even if the judge would have decided the facts differently.

How Is a JNOV Preserved and Requested?

A JNOV must be preserved by first moving for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) before the case is submitted to the jury. This prerequisite exists because Rule 50(b) is framed as a “renewal” of the earlier motion — a party cannot renew a motion it never made. After an adverse verdict, the movant files the renewed motion within the deadline set by rule, and the court may allow the verdict to stand, order a new trial or direct entry of judgment for the movant. Missing the Rule 50(a) step generally waives the challenge.

The sequence for preserving and requesting a JNOV is:

1. Move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) at the close of the evidence, before submission to the jury.
2. Allow the case to go to the jury if the court denies or reserves the motion.
3. After an unfavorable verdict, renew the motion under Rule 50(b) within the time the rule allows — 28 days after entry of judgment in federal court.
4. The court then rules, and its decision is reviewed de novo on appeal.

How Does a JNOV Differ From a Motion for a New Trial?

A JNOV ends the case by entering the opposite judgment, while a new trial sends the dispute back for another jury to decide. A JNOV rests on the legal insufficiency of the evidence, so the court concludes the verdict cannot stand as a matter of law. A motion for a new trial, by contrast, may be granted for trial error, misconduct or a verdict against the weight of the evidence, and it results in a retrial rather than a final judgment. Parties frequently file the two together in the alternative.

Conclusion

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) — the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) in federal court — lets a judge overturn a jury verdict that no reasonable jury could have reached on the evidence. It applies the same legal sufficiency standard as a directed verdict, requires a prior Rule 50(a) motion to preserve and differs from a new trial in that it ends the case rather than restarting it. Because the terminology and deadlines vary between federal and state courts, practitioners should confirm the governing rule and preservation requirements in their forum.

Frequently Asked Questions