Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV): When and How to Win One

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or JNOV (Latin: non obstante veredicto), is a post-verdict order in which the trial judge enters judgment for the losing party because no reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, could have reached the verdict actually returned. In federal civil practice the procedure is no longer called JNOV; the 1991 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure renamed it a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b). Most state court systems still use the older "JNOV" or "judgment n.o.v." terminology. The substance is the same in both: the trial judge overrides the jury verdict because the evidence does not support it.

Federal Practice Under Rule 50

Rule 50 has two phases. During trial, after the opposing party has been fully heard on an issue, a party may move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a). The judge can grant the motion or reserve ruling. If the case goes to the jury and the verdict is unfavorable, the moving party renews the motion under Rule 50(b) within 28 days after entry of judgment. Filing the Rule 50(a) motion at the close of evidence is jurisdictional: a party that did not move at trial cannot move under Rule 50(b) after the verdict, even if the evidence plainly does not support the verdict. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this rule in Unitherm Food Systems v. Swift-Eckrich.

Standard the Trial Judge Applies

Stage	Standard	Practical Effect
Rule 50(a) at close of evidence	No legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury	Judge can take the case from the jury before deliberations
Rule 50(b) after verdict	Same standard, applied to the actual record	Judge enters judgment for the moving party despite the verdict
Rule 59 motion for new trial (alternative)	Verdict against the clear weight of the evidence	Lower threshold; do-over instead of reversal

The court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (the verdict winner), draw all reasonable inferences in their favor, and decline to assess witness credibility. JNOV is a high bar: the moving party must show that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict on the record presented. Compare with the lower standard of a Rule 59 motion for new trial under Rule 59, which authorizes a do-over when the verdict is against the clear weight of evidence even if a reasonable jury could have reached it.

Why JNOV Exists

JNOV serves two functions. First, it prevents juries from reaching verdicts that the underlying record cannot support, protecting both parties from caprice. Second, it lets the trial judge fix the error directly rather than forcing the parties through an appeal. Appellate courts strongly favor that posture: a trial-court Rule 50(b) ruling is often the cleanest record for review, since the trial judge sat through the entire trial and knows exactly what was admitted.

The procedure also has a constitutional dimension. The Seventh Amendment Reexamination Clause forbids federal courts from reexamining facts tried to a jury except as allowed at common law, and in Slocum v. New York Life Insurance Co., 228 U.S. 364 (1913), the Supreme Court held that entering judgment contrary to a verdict was unconstitutional reexamination. Baltimore & Carolina Line v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654 (1935), then approved the practice where the judge had reserved decision on a motion made before the case went to the jury. Rule 50 is built on that distinction: the Rule 50(b) motion is treated as a renewal of the reserved Rule 50(a) motion, which is the doctrinal reason a party who never moved before submission cannot seek judgment as a matter of law after the verdict.

Combined Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 Motions

Sophisticated practitioners almost always file both motions in the alternative: Rule 50(b) for judgment as a matter of law (a complete win) and Rule 59 for a new trial (a do-over). If Rule 50(b) is granted, the judge must conditionally rule on Rule 59 in case the appellate court reverses the JNOV (Rule 50(c)). The combined motion gives the trial judge two paths to fix the verdict and the appellate court a complete record to review. Filing only Rule 50(b) and losing, then appealing, leaves no fallback.

Common Grounds

The most common grounds: (1) plaintiff failed to produce evidence on an essential element of the claim, often causation or damages; (2) defendant established an affirmative defense as a matter of law (statute of limitations, contract bar); (3) damages exceed any rational measure of compensable harm; (4) the verdict reflects clear juror confusion or compromise. Pure credibility disputes almost never support JNOV because credibility is the jury's exclusive province.

Appellate Review of JNOV

An appellate court reviews a grant or denial of a renewed Rule 50(b) motion de novo on the same standard the trial court applied: viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner. This is one of the few situations in civil appellate practice in which the appellate court does not defer to the trial court at all. Practitioners therefore put significant effort into building the JNOV record at trial, knowing that the appellate review will be searching. That searching review also means appellate brief drafting in a Rule 50(b) appeal rewards meticulous record citation more than almost any other posture, because the reviewing court retraces the evidence itself.

JNOV vs. Directed Verdict vs. New Trial

A directed verdict is a Rule 50(a) ruling at the close of evidence; the case never goes to the jury. JNOV (Rule 50(b)) is the same ruling after the verdict. A motion for new trial (Rule 59) does not flip the verdict; it asks for a do-over. A motion to vacate (Rule 60) attacks the judgment for procedural defects, fraud, or newly discovered evidence on a longer timeline. Each tool has its own deadline, standard, and tolling effect on the appeal clock.

Related Civil Procedure Guides

• filing a notice of appeal
• appellate brief structure under FRAP 28
• motion for new trial under Rule 59
• motion for reconsideration timing
• appellate standards of review

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an example of judgment notwithstanding the verdict?

A jury awards $500,000 to a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case, but the trial record contains no evidence that the defendant store had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, an essential element of premises liability. The defendant moved at the close of evidence under Rule 50(a) and renewed the motion under Rule 50(b) after the verdict. The judge grants JNOV and enters judgment for the defendant because no reasonable jury could find the notice element on this record.

Is a judgment the same as a verdict?

No. A verdict is the jury's answer to the questions on the verdict form. A judgment is the court's official order entered after the verdict, which records the legal effect of the verdict and is the document from which appeal deadlines run. The trial judge can enter judgment on the verdict, enter JNOV reversing the verdict, or order a new trial that vacates both.

What are the three types of verdicts?

The three are general (the jury simply finds for the plaintiff or defendant and, if for the plaintiff, awards damages), special (the jury answers a series of factual questions and the court enters judgment based on the answers), and general with interrogatories (a hybrid combining a general verdict with specific factual findings). JNOV applies to all three but is hardest to win against a special verdict because the jury's specific findings often supply the facts the moving party would otherwise contest.

Is judgment vacated a good thing?

It depends on which side you are on. For the party who lost the verdict, vacating the judgment is favorable. For the verdict winner, vacating the judgment usually means a new trial or, in the case of JNOV, a complete loss. A vacated judgment also restarts the appeal clock under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 once the new judgment is entered.

What is the difference between JNOV and summary judgment?

The standard is essentially the same, whether a reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party, but the timing and record differ. A motion for summary judgment is decided before trial on affidavits, depositions, and exhibits, while a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is decided after trial on the evidence the jury actually heard. A claim that survives summary judgment can still fail under Rule 50 if the trial testimony comes in weaker than the pretrial record suggested.

Can you raise new arguments in a Rule 50(b) motion?

No. Because Rule 50(b) is only a renewal of the earlier motion, it is limited to the grounds stated with specificity in the Rule 50(a) motion made before the case went to the jury. A sufficiency argument raised for the first time after the verdict is forfeited, and most circuits will review it, if at all, only for plain error resulting in manifest injustice.

What happens if you miss the 28-day deadline for a Rule 50(b) motion?

The motion is untimely and the district court cannot extend the deadline; Rule 6(b)(2) expressly prohibits enlarging the time to file a Rule 50(b) motion. The losing party may still appeal on other grounds, but under Unitherm an appellate court cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence at all without a timely post-verdict motion, so a missed deadline usually locks in the verdict.

When to Hire a Trial Lawyer

JNOV is a Rule 50(a) motion at trial waiting to become a Rule 50(b) motion after verdict. Failing to move at the close of evidence forfeits JNOV entirely. Our litigation team drafts trial-ready Rule 50(a) motions, post-verdict Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 packages, and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with a complete preservation record for appeal.