Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Definition

Model Diplomat Research Team · Last reviewed June 22, 2026

TL;DR

A post-trial ruling in which a judge overrides a jury's verdict because no reasonable jury could have reached it on the evidence presented.
Is JNOV still used in U.S. federal court?
Can a judge use JNOV to overturn a criminal acquittal?
How does JNOV differ from a new trial?

Law & RightsUpdated June 22, 2026

Go beyond the definition

Research Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict like a delegate

Model Diplomat's AI drafts position papers, speeches, and country research with real sources — built for MUN and politics students.

Research it like a delegate

Research on modeldiplomat.com

Ask a follow-up about Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

Open a cited briefing in Model Diplomat search — timelines, positions, and sources you can use in committee or exam answers.

Start research on Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

Example

In 2011, a federal judge in California granted judgment as a matter of law (the modern federal equivalent of JNOV) reducing a jury's $625 million verdict against Apple in the Mirror Worlds patent case, finding the evidence insufficient to sustain the award.

Keep learning

Go deeper than the definition

Explore all Law & Rights lessons Test yourself with a quiz

Take Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict beyond the glossary

Ask the AI research engine built for diplomacy — get briefings, position papers, and speeches with sources you can cite in committee.

Research it like a delegate

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (often abbreviated JNOV, from the Latin non obstante veredicto) is a procedural device that allows a trial judge to enter judgment for the party who lost before the jury, on the ground that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support the jury's conclusion. It is an exceptional remedy: courts apply it only where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no reasonable juror could have found as the jury did.

In United States federal practice, the term JNOV was formally retired in 1991, when Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was amended to consolidate the directed verdict and JNOV into a single mechanism called judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). Under Rule 50(a), a party may move for JMOL before the case is submitted to the jury; under Rule 50(b), the motion may be renewed after the verdict. The renewed Rule 50(b) motion is the functional successor to the old JNOV. Many U.S. state courts, however, still use the older "JNOV" terminology in their rules of civil procedure.

Key features:

It is available in civil cases, and in criminal cases only to enter a judgment of acquittal (never to overturn an acquittal, which would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment).
It is distinct from a new trial motion, which asks the court to retry the case rather than reverse the outcome outright.
Appellate review of a JNOV/JMOL ruling is typically de novo, since the question is one of legal sufficiency.

The doctrine is rooted in the common-law tradition and exists in various forms across jurisdictions influenced by English procedure, including parts of Canada and Australia, though civil-law systems generally lack a direct analogue because they do not use lay juries in the same way.

Frequently asked questions

Is JNOV still used in U.S. federal court?

No. Since the 1991 amendments to Rule 50, federal courts use 'judgment as a matter of law' (JMOL). The Rule 50(b) renewed motion serves the same function as the former JNOV.

Can a judge use JNOV to overturn a criminal acquittal?

No. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars a court from setting aside a jury's not-guilty verdict. JNOV-style relief in criminal cases runs only in favor of the defendant.

How does JNOV differ from a new trial?

JNOV enters judgment for the other party outright, ending the case (subject to appeal). A new trial motion sets the verdict aside and orders the matter retried before a new jury.