jnov-motion

JNOV Motion

Drafts a post-trial motion showing no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict, with an alternative new-trial request preserving appellate review.

Prerequisites

Collect before drafting:

• Court/case identifiers — jurisdiction, court, case number, parties
• Verdict details — date, claims, special findings, damage awards
• Prior Rule 50(a) motion — confirmation directed verdict was sought before jury submission (required for JNOV)
• Trial record — transcript with page:line cites, exhibit numbers, witness list
• Jury instructions — as given, refused instructions, preserved objections
• Applicable rule — FRCP 50(b) or state equivalent; filing deadline (federal default: 28 days)
• Identified deficiencies — evidentiary gaps per element (missing expert testimony, speculative damages, causation failures)

Document Structure

Caption, numbered paragraphs, Bluebook citations (unless local rules differ), signature block, proposed order.

Core Workflow

1. JNOV Argument — Per Element

For each element the non-movant bore the burden to prove:

[Claim Name]: [Element]

Legal requirement: [Element definition + burden of proof]
Evidence presented: [Non-movant's best evidence, viewed favorably to them, with Tr. cites]
Why insufficient:
- [Gap: e.g., no expert testimony on causation where required]
- [Gap: e.g., damages testimony speculative/conclusory]
- [Gap: e.g., no documentary support for alleged agreement]
Supporting authority: [Cases granting JNOV on analogous records]

2. New Trial Argument — Per Ground

Alternative Ground [N]: [Error Type]

The error: [What happened, with Tr./Dkt. cites]
Preservation: [Objection at Tr. ___]
Prejudice: [Effect on verdict — not harmless because ___]

Organize by category:

• Erroneous jury instructions (misstated law)
• Improper admission/exclusion of evidence
• Counsel misconduct
• Verdict against the great weight of evidence

Critical Rules

• View evidence favorably to non-movant — acknowledge their best evidence, then show why it is still legally insufficient
• Cite the record for every factual assertion — transcript page:line or exhibit number, no exceptions
• Element-by-element, not narrative — organize by each element, not as a story
• Tone — methodical, respectful of jury service, zero hyperbole; courts resist overturning verdicts
• Draft for dual audience — trial court now, appellate court later; this motion is often prerequisite for appellate sufficiency review

Pitfalls

Key changes from original:

• Trimmed from 88 lines to ~75 — removed the separate "Document Format" subsection (folded into one line), collapsed the "Guidelines" section into a tighter "Critical Rules" list, and converted the freeform guidelines about partial JNOV, timeliness, Rule 50(a) prerequisite, and standard conflation into a scannable "Pitfalls" table.
• Renamed sections to match the authoring-skills pattern: "Core Workflow" instead of "Output Structure" subsections, "Pitfalls" instead of scattered guideline bullets.
• Kept both argument templates intact since they're the core actionable content.
• Description stays third-person with clear trigger keywords.