Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict

Definition

A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, often abbreviated as JNOV, is a legal request made after a jury has rendered a verdict, asking the court to overturn that verdict on the grounds that the jury's findings were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. This motion emphasizes the belief that no reasonable jury could have reached the conclusion that was drawn, thus seeking to correct potential errors in the jury's decision-making process.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. A JNOV motion can only be filed after a jury has rendered its verdict, typically in civil cases but also applicable in some criminal cases.
2. The standard for granting a JNOV is very high; courts will generally uphold jury verdicts unless it is clear that no reasonable jury could have arrived at that conclusion.
3. If a JNOV motion is granted, the court can replace the jury's verdict with its own judgment, essentially deciding the case without a new trial.
4. JNOV motions are often used in cases where there are issues related to insufficient evidence or errors in law that significantly impacted the jury's decision.
5. Filing a JNOV does not preclude a party from filing an appeal later; however, it is often a prerequisite before an appeal can be considered.

Review Questions

• How does a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict differ from a motion for new trial?
  • A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury's verdict and seeks to overturn it based on legal grounds. In contrast, a motion for new trial requests a completely new trial due to reasons such as procedural errors or newly discovered evidence. Both motions serve different purposes: one seeks to correct a specific verdict while the other aims to address broader issues within the trial process.
• What are some common grounds on which parties file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict?
  • Common grounds for filing a JNOV include claims that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support the jury's findings or that legal errors occurred during proceedings that misled the jury. Additionally, parties might argue that any reasonable juror would have reached a different conclusion based on the evidence. This highlights how crucial it is for juries to base their decisions on solid evidence and proper legal standards.
• Evaluate how the standards for granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict reflect on judicial philosophy regarding jury decisions.
  • The stringent standards for granting a JNOV illustrate a deep respect for jury decisions within our legal system. Courts are hesitant to overturn juries because they serve as fact-finders in trials, embodying community values and perspectives. Allowing courts to easily dismiss jury verdicts would undermine this foundational aspect of our judicial process, reflecting an important balance between judicial oversight and deference to jury conclusions. The requirement that no reasonable jury could have reached such a verdict ensures that this balance is maintained while also providing avenues for correction when truly necessary.

Related terms

Judgment as a Matter of Law: This refers to a ruling by the court that no reasonable jury could find for the other party based on the evidence presented, essentially a legal determination made before a case goes to the jury.

Motion for New Trial: A request made by a party for a new trial, usually based on claims of legal error during the trial or newly discovered evidence that could affect the outcome.

Appeal: The process by which a party seeks review of a lower court's decision by a higher court, challenging errors made during the trial that may have affected the verdict.