The court must resolve any conflicts in favor of the party resisting the motion. The court must consider only the evidence and any inferences therefrom, and must do so in the light most advantageous to the nonmoving party. In deciding a motion for JNOV, the court is facing questions only of law, not fact. However, some statutes do not permit a court to hear a motion for JNOV under such circumstances. A directed verdict is a request by a party that the judge enter a verdict in that party's behalf before the case is submitted to the jury.Īlthough a jury generally must return a verdict before a motion for JNOV can be made, if the jury does not agree on a verdict, as in a jury deadlocked, some courts will hear a motion for JNOV.
Many statutes and rules require that the moving party must have previously sought a directed verdict, and that the grounds for the JNOV motion be the same or nearly the same as those for the directed verdict. The motion generally must be made in writing and must set forth the specific reasons entitling the party to relief. To be granted relief by a JNOV, a party must make a motion seeking that relief.
A JNOV is proper when the court finds that the party bearing the burden of proof fails to make out a prima facie case (a case that on first appearance will prevail unless contradicted by evidence). Under modern law a JNOV is generally available to both plaintiffs and defendants, and an arrest of judgment is primarily used with judgments in criminal cases. Originally this remedy could be entered only in favor of the plaintiff, and the similar remedy of arrest of judgment could be entered only in favor of the defendant. The phrase "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" is abbreviated JNOV, which stands for its Latin equivalent, judgment "non obstante veredicto." The remedy of JNOV applies only in cases decided by a jury. A judgment entered by the court in favor of one party even though the jury returned a verdict for the opposing party.
0 kommentar(er)
