Judgment notwithstanding verdict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article does not cite any references or sources. (March 2007) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Civil Procedure in the U.S.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Doctrines of civil procedure Jurisdiction Subject-matter jurisdiction Diversity jurisdiction Personal jurisdiction Removal jurisdiction Venue Change of venue Forum non conveniens Pleadings and motions Service of process Complaint Cause of action Case Information Statement Class action Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 Demurrer Answer Affirmative defense Reply Counterclaim Cross-claim Joinder Impleader Interpleader Intervention Pre-trial procedure Discovery Interrogatories Depositions Resolution Without Trial Default judgment Summary judgment Voluntary dismissal Involuntary dismissal Settlement Trial Parties Plaintiff Defendant Jury Voir dire Burden of proof Judgment Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) Renewed JMOL (JNOV) Motion to set aside judgment New trial Remedy Injunction Damages Attorney's fees American rule English rule Declaratory judgment Appeal Mandamus Certiorari
view/edit this template

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or J.N.O.V. for short (English "Judgment" + Latin Non Obstante Veredicto) is a type of J.M.O.L., or Judgment as a matter of law, that is ordered at the conclusion of a jury trial.

J.N.O.V. is the practice in American courts whereby the presiding judge in a civil jury trial may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict. In literal terms, the judge enters a verdict notwithstanding the jury findings. This intervention, often requested but rarely granted, permits the judge to exercise discretion to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions.^[1]

Because of the guaranteed right to a jury trial in United States criminal cases, a judge is not allowed to enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal.

A JNOV will be upheld on appeal only if the appellate court determines that no reasonable juror could have reached the verdict reached. For example, if a party enters no evidence on an essential element of their case, and the jury still finds in their favor, the court may rule that no reasonable jury would have disregarded the lack of evidence on that key point and will reform the judgment.

In criminal cases in the U.S., an analogous concept is that of a directed verdict.

Reversal of a jury's verdict by a judge when the judge believes that there were insufficient facts on which to base the jury's verdict, or that the verdict did not correctly apply the law. This procedure is similar to a situation in which a judge orders a jury to arrive at a particular verdict, called a directed verdict. In fact, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is occasionally made when a jury refuses to follow a judge's instruction to arrive at a certain verdict. ^[2]

[edit] References

1. ^ Rule 50(b). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. ^ Rule 50(a). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.