JNOV (Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict)
A post-verdict motion asking the trial court to enter judgment for the moving party despite an adverse jury verdict, on the ground that the verdict is unsupported by legally sufficient evidence. Governed by Tex. R. Civ. P. 301. The Texas legal-sufficiency standard requires evidence rising to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ; mere conjecture or speculation does not. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005), is the foundational case.
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 Texas Supreme Court rejected a "scintilla of evidence" formulation and adopted a more demanding standard: evidence is legally sufficient when it 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, but must disregard evidence that reasonable jurors could not credit, including: (1) evidence the jury was instructed to disregard; (2) "incredible" evidence that no reasonable juror would credit; (3) evidence inconsistent with undisputed facts. Conjecture, speculation, and uncorroborated suspicion are not "evidence" for legal-sufficiency purposes, they don't rise to the level required.
Procedural prerequisites
JNOV must be preceded by a properly preserved no-evidence motion in the trial court, typically a motion for directed verdict made at the close of the opposing party's case (and renewed at the close of all evidence). Failure to move for directed verdict on legal-sufficiency grounds waives the right to challenge legal sufficiency through JNOV (and on appeal). Texas appellate courts strictly enforce this preservation requirement: St. Joseph Hosp. v. Wolff, 94 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. 2002), and progeny require specific objections at the trial-court level to support no-evidence challenges later.
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, court enters judgment for the opposing party. 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.
For Texas commercial litigants, JNOV is the principal post-verdict mechanism for challenging an adverse jury outcome on the law. Best practice for defendants: (1) raise no-evidence challenges via directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case, with specific reference to each element lacking evidence; (2) renew at the close of all evidence; (3) prepare comprehensive JNOV motion within the post-verdict deadline; (4) preserve all challenges for appeal. For plaintiffs facing JNOV motion: (1) marshal the evidence supporting each challenged element; (2) identify the specific evidence that, viewed favorably, supports each finding; (3) be prepared to defend on appeal under Keller's standard. The strategic value of JNOV is highest where the underlying claim has well-defined elements and the evidence on a specific element is genuinely thin.