Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is where a Court can overrule or amend a jury’s verdict at the conclusion of a trial. In effect, you could have a 1-2 week trial concerning bodily injury, breach of contract, or an estate dispute and win a favorable verdict and then lose on a JNOV.
A JNOV can be proper when the plaintiff fails to make a submissible case in presenting facts to meet every element of its claim(s). Specifically, in order to make a submissible case, a plaintiff must present substantial evidence that tends to prove the facts essential to plaintiff’s recovery. Substantial evidence is competent evidence from which the trier of fact can reasonably decide the case. J.M. Neil & Associates v. Alexander Robert William, Inc., 362 S.W.3d 21, 23-24 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
JNOVs are rare and usually only occur to address jury verdicts which are either unreasonable or reflect a misinterpretation of the facts or law by the jury.
Contact us with questions.

Related Articles

Premises Liability: Third-Party Criminal Acts

November 22, 2023

As a general rule, if a customer/invitee of a business is harmed by a third-party criminal act, the business is not responsible. The rationale for this rule is that criminal acts are rarely foreseeable. Early v. Dunn, 670 S.W.3d 47, 51 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). There are a number of exceptions. First, a duty arises…

Read More

Mootness, Exceptions

October 19, 2023

Courts generally shy away from rendering decisions in moot cases. A case is moot when “the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy.” DCM v. Pemiscot County Juvenile Office, 578 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Mo. 2019). There…

Read More

Comity, Multiple Lawsuits, Litigation

October 11, 2023

In complex situations, it is not uncommon for multiple lawsuits to be pending in multiple jurisdictions. When this occurs, one court, in the interests of comity, may allow the other court to handle the entire dispute. At the state level in Missouri, comity is not an ironclad rule, but a rule of “practice, convenience, and…

Read More

Contracts: General versus Specific Provisions

October 2, 2023

Parties are bound to the terms of the contract they sign, unless induced by fraud, duress, or undue influence. Lehman v. Automotive Investments, LLC, 608 S.W.3d 733, 738 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). In analyzing contracts, courts focus on the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used. Id. Often times, however, a conflict can arise between what…

Read More
Scroll to Top