Devoted to Corporate Attorneys, Corporate Lawyers, and Corporate Counsel

The following is not meant to be legal advice and may be outdated research.

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is proper only when no substantial evidence and no reasonable inference therefrom support the jury’s verdict. 

In Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 C. 3d 104, because the appellate court’s review of the evidence, in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, disclosed evidence that lead to a conclusion contrary to the jury’s verdict, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s granting of the plaintiffs’ motion for JNOV.

A motion for JNOV may be granted only if it appears from the evidence that there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict.  For instance, if there are inconsistencies in a witness’ testimony, it is up to the trier of fact to consider the inconsistencies in testimony, and to determine what weight to give the testimony.