JNOV (Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict)

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is a post-verdict motion asking the trial court to disregard the jury's verdict and enter judgment for the moving party on the ground that the verdict is unsupported by legally sufficient evidence. JNOV is the procedural mechanism for raising no-evidence challenges after the case has gone to the jury, distinct from a directed verdict (which raises the same legal-sufficiency challenge before submission). The Texas standard for legal sufficiency is articulated in City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005).

The legal-sufficiency standard

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005), is the foundational modern Texas case on legal sufficiency. The court held that the final test for legal sufficiency is whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to reach the verdict under review. Conversely, the evidence is legally insufficient when (a) there is a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact; (b) the court is barred by rules of law or evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (c) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a scintilla; or (d) the evidence conclusively establishes the opposite of a vital fact.

Categorical disregard of evidence

Under Keller, an appellate court reviewing legal sufficiency must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, crediting favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. Keller identifies contrary evidence that cannot be disregarded, including contextual evidence, evidence showing the favorable evidence is incompetent, and undisputed evidence that allows only one logical inference. Conjecture, speculation, and uncorroborated suspicion are not "evidence" for legal-sufficiency purposes, they don't rise to the level required.

Procedural prerequisites

Texas does not require a motion for directed verdict before a JNOV motion. A no-evidence complaint may be preserved by any of five means: a motion for instructed verdict, a motion for JNOV, an objection to the submission of the question to the jury, a motion to disregard the jury's answer to a vital fact question, or a motion for new trial. Cecil v. Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. 1991); Aero Energy, Inc. v. Circle C Drilling Co., 699 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. 1985).

Disregarding individual jury answers

Rule 301 also authorizes the trial court to disregard individual jury answers (rather than the entire verdict) where there is no evidence to support a particular answer. This partial JNOV mechanism is useful when a jury verdict is generally supported but contains specific unsupported findings, typically on damages amounts that exceed the evidentiary record. The trial court may enter judgment for the supported portions of the verdict while disregarding the unsupported answer.

Distinction from new trial

JNOV (legal insufficiency) is distinct from new-trial relief on factual-sufficiency grounds. Legal insufficiency: the evidence fails to rise to the level supporting the verdict, and the court renders judgment for the party challenging the verdict. Factual insufficiency: the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict but the verdict is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is manifestly unjust, court grants new trial. Different standards, different remedies, different appellate review.