law-JNOV

law-JNOV = judgment n.o.v. = judgment notwithstanding the verdict = judgment non obstante veredicto

JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
JUDGMENT NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO (JNOV)

A trial court generally may disregard a jury verdict and render judgment notwithstanding the verdict
("JNOV") only if (1) no evidence supports the jury finding on an issue necessary to liability; (2) the
evidence conclusively establishes the right of the movant to judgment; (3) the evidence conclusively
negates the right of the opponent to judgment; or (4) the evidence is insufficient to raise a material
fact issue. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 301 (allowing trial court to render JNOV if jury finding has no support
in evidence or if directed verdict would have been proper; Tiller v. McLure, 121 S.W.3d 709, 713
(Tex. 2003); Fort Bend County Drainage Dist. v. Sbrusch, 818 S.W.2d 392, 394 (Tex. 1991);
Prudential Ins. Co. v. Fin. Review Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74, 77 (Tex. 2000) (setting out
circumstances when directed verdict is proper); Hogue v. Propath Lab., Inc., 192 S.W.3d 641, 646
(Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied).
But a trial court may, without a motion by a party, disregard a jury's finding on an issue erroneously
submitted, such as a question of law. Alcorn v. Brown, 536 S.W.2d 80, 82 (Tex. Civ. App- Fort
Worth 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also Se. Pipe Line Co., Inc. v. Tichacek, 997 S.W.2d 166, 172
(Tex. 1999) (noting that a jury's answer to a question may be disregarded if question calls for a
finding on a question of law).
09-0575 BOBBY FERACHI v. SHAWN CADY; from Denton County;
2nd district (02-07-00355-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-28-09)(contract for purchase of interest in houseboat
unsuccessfully challenged as indefinite and unenforceable, indefiniteness of contract, meeting of the minds
element, JNOV)

Standard of Review for JNOV. When reviewing the legal sufficiency of a court of appeals judgment
reversing the trial court’s judgment n.o.v., we conduct a legal sufficiency analysis of the evidence. Guevara
v. Ferrer, 247 S.W.3d 662, 665 (Tex. 2007). We review the evidence presented at trial in the light most
favorable to the jury’s verdict, crediting evidence favorable to that party if reasonable jurors could and
disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. Id.
EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION OF ERROR REQUIREMENT IN JNOV CONTEXT
Deere argues that error was not preserved because Ingram’s motion for a judgment n.o.v. did not assign a
no evidence point of error regarding the jury’s answer to the partnership question. However, Ingram
prevailed on his motion for judgment n.o.v. Thus, as the prevailing party, he need only raise the issue of
whether a partnership existed as a cross-point. Tex. R. App. P. 38.2(b). When a trial court renders judgment
n.o.v. and the losing party appeals, the prevailing party may also appeal and present points or issues on any
ground that would either vitiate the verdict or preclude affirming the judgment and reinstating the verdict,
including grounds not raised in the judgment n.o.v. See id. (providing that when a trial court renders a
judgment n.o.v., “the appellee must bring forward by cross-point any issue or point that would have vitiated
the verdict or that would have prevented an affirmance of the judgment if the trial court had rendered
judgment on the verdict” (emphasis added)). This is an exception to the general rule that as a prerequisite to
presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that the complaint was made to the trial
court and that the trial court ruled or refused to rule on the request. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Because
Ingram properly raised the issue to the court of appeals, he did not waive the issue for review by either this
Court or the court of appeals.

JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT (JNOV)

A trial court may disregard a jury verdict and render JNOV if no evidence supports the jury findings on issues
necessary to liability or if a directed verdict would have been proper. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 301; Tiller v.
McLure, 121 S.W.3d 709, 713 (Tex. 2003); Fort Bend County Drainage Dist. v. Sbrusch, 818 S.W.2d 392,
394 (Tex. 1991). A directed verdict is proper only under limited circumstances: (1) when the evidence
conclusively establishes the right of the movant to judgment or negates the right of the opponent; or (2)
when the evidence is insufficient to raise a material fact issue. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Fin. Review Servs., Inc.,
29 S.W.3d 74, 77 (Tex. 2000); Ray v. McFarland, 97 S.W.3d 728, 730 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).

To determine whether the trial court erred by rendering a JNOV, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict under the well-settled standards that govern legal sufficiency review. See Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Miller, 102 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex. 2003). The standard for reviewing a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict, like all other motions rendering judgment as a matter of law, requires a reviewing
court to credit evidence favoring the jury verdict if reasonable jurors could and disregard contrary evidence
unless reasonable jurors could not. Cent. Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Islas, 228 S.W.3d 649, 651 (Tex.
2007). If the trial court grants a motion for JNOV on the wrong ground, we must nevertheless affirm the
judgment if any theory in the motion could support the JNOV. Wallis v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 2 S.W.3d
300, 302 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 1999, pet. denied); see also Guar. County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Reyna, 709 S.
W.2d 647, 648 (Tex. 1986) (holding that lower court's judgment must be upheld on any correct legal theory
before it, even if court gave an incorrect reason for the judgment).

R2 ENTERPRISES, INC. AND TED REEVES v. VERNON WHIPPLE; from Denton County; 2nd district
(02-07-00257-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-26-08, pet. denied Sep 2008)(JNOV, partnership dispute, no standing)
This case involves a dispute between one of the limited partners of a limited partnership and the other
limited partner and the general partner of the limited partnership.

A trial court's decision to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be affirmed if the evidence is
legally insufficient to support one or more of the jury findings on issues necessary to liability. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Miller, 102 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam); Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper,
802 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex.1990). Evidence is legally insufficient where (1) there is a complete lack
of evidence of a vital fact; (2) the court is barred by rules of law or of evidence from giving weight to
the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (3) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no
more than a scintilla; or (4) the evidence conclusively establishes the opposite of a vital fact.
Lochinvar Corp. v. Meyers, 930 S.W.2d 182, 188 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1996, no writ). In a legal
sufficiency review, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and indulge
every reasonable inference that would support it. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 822
(Tex. 2005). The ultimate test of legal sufficiency is whether the evidence would enable reasonable
and fair-minded people to reach the verdict under review, crediting favorable evidence if
reasonable jurors could and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. Id.
at 827; Deere v. Ingram, 198 S.W.3d 96, 100 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, pet. granted).
Source:
08-0247
GLOBAL WATER GROUP, INC. v. ASPEN WATER, INC. AND ROBERT ATCHLEY; from Dallas County; 5th
district (05-06-00709-CV, 244 SW3d 924, 02-14-08, pet. denied)(claims for misappropriation of trade
secrets and conspiracy, confidentiality agreement, breach of a shareholder agreement, JNOV)