libterm.com Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) occurs when a court overturns the jury's decision because the evidence clearly does not support the verdict. This legal remedy ensures that a party is not unfairly bound by a verdict that defies the weight of evidence and law. Explore the rest of this article to understand how JNOV can impact your case and the criteria courts use to grant it.
Table of Comparison
| Aspect | Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) | Remittitur |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | A court order overturning the jury's verdict due to insufficient evidence. | A judicial order reducing the amount of damages awarded by a jury. |
| Purpose | To correct legally unsupported verdicts. | To prevent excessive or unjust monetary awards. |
| When Applied | After jury verdict, before final judgment. | After jury's damage award but before final judgment. |
| Result | Verdict is replaced by court judgment. | Damages are lowered; jury verdict largely upheld. |
| Legal Standard | Evidence viewed in favor of non-moving party; verdict must be unsupported. | Damages deemed excessive and shock the conscience. |
| Effect on Jury | Jury verdict is set aside. | Jury's damage award is modified but verdict stands. |
| Right to Trial | Courts can grant a new trial if JNOV is denied. | Plaintiff can accept reduced damages or request new trial. |
Introduction to Post-Trial Motions
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) allows a court to overturn the jury's decision when the evidence clearly does not support the verdict, ensuring that legal standards are upheld despite the jury's findings. Remittitur is a post-trial motion where the court reduces the amount of damages awarded by the jury when it deems the award excessive or unreasonable based on the evidence presented. Both motions serve as crucial mechanisms in post-trial proceedings to correct verdict outcomes without the need for a new trial.
Definition of Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)
Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) is a legal ruling whereby a judge overturns the jury's verdict when the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support the decision. This motion asserts that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict based on the law and facts. Unlike remittitur, which involves reducing a jury's monetary award, JNOV effectively replaces the jury's findings with the court's judgment.
Definition of Remittitur
Remittitur is a legal remedy allowing a trial judge to reduce an excessive jury award to a lower amount deemed reasonable without ordering a new trial. Unlike judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), where the judge overturns the jury's decision entirely, remittitur modifies only the damages awarded while leaving liability findings intact. This procedure aims to correct inflated verdicts while preserving the jury's factual determinations.
Legal Foundations and Historical Background
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) originates from common law principles allowing a judge to override a jury's decision when no reasonable juror could have reached that verdict, rooted in the need to uphold legal standards and prevent miscarriages of justice. Remittitur, with origins in English equity practice and further developed in American jurisprudence, serves as a judicial tool permitting courts to reduce excessive jury awards to align damages with legally justifiable amounts. Both doctrines reflect the judiciary's role in balancing jury discretion with legal correctness, grounded in historical efforts to ensure fair outcomes and prevent unjust enrichment or errors in civil litigation.
Key Differences Between JNOV and Remittitur
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is a post-trial motion where the court overturns the jury's verdict on the grounds that no reasonable jury could have reached that decision based on the evidence. Remittitur involves the judge reducing the damages awarded by the jury when they believe the amount is excessive or unsupported but allows the verdict itself to stand. The key difference lies in JNOV effectively replacing the jury's verdict, while remittitur modifies the verdict's monetary award without nullifying the jury's findings.
Procedural Steps for Seeking JNOV
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) involves filing a motion after a jury verdict, requesting the court to override the jury's decision due to insufficient evidence supporting the verdict, typically within a strict post-trial deadline. The procedural steps include submitting the motion in the same trial court, specifying the legal grounds that the jury's findings lack reasonable support, and awaiting the judge's ruling on the matter. By contrast, remittitur is a post-verdict motion where the judge offers a reduced damages amount to the plaintiff as an alternative to a new trial, focusing primarily on excessiveness rather than evidentiary insufficiency.
Procedural Steps for Requesting Remittitur
Remittitur involves the party filing a formal motion requesting the court to reduce the jury's monetary award on grounds that the verdict is excessive or unsupported by evidence, typically following a jury's verdict but before the judgment is finalized. The procedure requires the moving party to specify the amount they consider appropriate and state legal or factual reasons justifying the reduction, enabling the opposing party to accept the reduced amount or opt for a new trial. Courts evaluate the remittitur motion by assessing whether the damages exceed reasonable limits based on evidence and legal standards, balancing fairness without overriding the jury's factual determinations.
Standards and Grounds for Granting JNOV and Remittitur
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is granted when the court finds that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict based on the evidence, emphasizing legal insufficiency and the standard of whether reasonable minds could differ. Remittitur occurs when the court determines the jury's damages award is excessive or unsupported by the evidence, offering a reduction without overturning liability, thereby ensuring the verdict aligns with the standards of fairness and proportionality. Both remedies require a rigorous review of the trial record, but JNOV challenges the verdict's factual basis, while remittitur limits excessive damages within the factual findings.
Impact on Appeals and Final Judgments
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) allows a judge to overturn a jury's decision when no reasonable jury could have reached that verdict, directly affecting the trial's final judgment and often limiting appellate review to questions of law. Remittitur involves a judge ordering a reduction of a jury's damages award if it appears excessive, typically resolving issues without a full appeal by prompting the plaintiff to accept a lower amount. Both mechanisms influence appeals by providing alternative paths to modify verdicts before the appellate stage, impacting the finality and scope of judicial review.
Practical Considerations for Litigators
Litigators weighing Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) versus Remittitur must assess the likelihood of judicial acceptance and appellate review standards; JNOV demands demonstrating that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict, while Remittitur offers a pragmatic reduction of excessive damages without overturning liability. Strategic timing and procedural nuances are critical, as Remittitur often expedites case resolution and preserves favorable findings, whereas JNOV can provoke new trials and prolonged litigation. Careful evaluation of case facts, jury behavior, and potential appellate outcomes guides effective post-verdict motion strategy to optimize client outcomes.
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict Infographic
