Definition
Non obstante veredicto (Latin: "notwithstanding the verdict") is a judgment entered by a court in favor of one party despite a jury verdict in favor of the other. The court, in effect, overrides the jury's finding and enters judgment as a matter of law for the moving party, concluding that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict it did on the evidence presented.
The doctrine operates as a judicial correction mechanism. Where the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support the jury's conclusion, the court does not disturb the factual record but instead determines that the law compels a different outcome regardless of what the jury found.
In modern American practice, the motion is typically brought after the jury returns its verdict and is closely associated — procedurally and doctrinally — with the directed verdict, which raises the same legal question at the close of evidence before the jury deliberates.
---
Common Language
The Latin phrase translates literally to "the verdict notwithstanding" or "notwithstanding the verdict." Neither Wiktionary nor Webster's 1913 treats this as a common English term — it is and has always been a term of art within legal procedure. No meaningful gap between common and legal usage exists for this phrase, as it does not appear in ordinary non-legal discourse.
---
Common Confusion
NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO vs. DIRECTED VERDICT: These are functionally identical in legal standard but differ procedurally. A directed verdict is entered before the jury deliberates, on a party's motion at the close of evidence; a judgment non obstante veredicto is entered after the jury has returned its verdict. Both require the court to find that no legally sufficient evidentiary basis existed for the jury to decide otherwise. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, both are now subsumed into the unified motion for "judgment as a matter of law" under Rule 50, but many state courts and historical sources maintain the distinction. Researchers working with pre-Rules materials must keep the two terms separate.
NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO vs. NEW TRIAL: A judgment n.o.v. substitutes a different legal outcome for the jury's verdict. A motion for new trial does not substitute a judgment but instead voids the verdict and orders the matter retried. Courts sometimes grant both in the alternative — n.o.v. as the primary relief, new trial conditionally if the n.o.v. is reversed on appeal.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Terminology shift is the central trap. Since the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938), federal courts no longer formally use "non obstante veredicto" or "judgment n.o.v." as procedural terms — Rule 50 replaced both with "judgment as a matter of law." Researchers using the Law Mind corpus across different time periods will encounter both terminologies in cases discussing the same procedural device. A case decided in 1925 granting judgment n.o.v. and a case decided in 1975 granting judgment as a matter of law post-verdict are discussing the same motion under different names.
State practice diverges. Many states retain the traditional "judgment n.o.v." terminology and treat it as a distinct motion from the directed verdict. Others have adopted Rule 50-style unification. When reading state court opinions, check whether the jurisdiction treats these as procedurally unified or separate before drawing conclusions about how the motion was preserved.
Preservation requirements are jurisdictionally sensitive and historically variable. In federal practice after Galloway v. United States, a party typically must have moved for a directed verdict at the close of evidence to preserve a later motion for judgment n.o.v. (or judgment as a matter of law). Historical sources predate this requirement and may describe n.o.v. practice without addressing preservation — a gap that matters significantly if researching the development of that rule.
The term also appears in older English practice with a distinct procedural meaning rooted in common law pleading, where a court could enter judgment for the plaintiff notwithstanding a verdict for the defendant when the pleadings themselves established entitlement as a matter of law. This English common law usage predates the American motion-practice sense and appears in older treatises and dictionaries. Researchers working with pre-nineteenth-century English materials should be alert to this earlier, narrower meaning.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence (1883) defines non obstante veredicto as "a judgment rendered by the court in favor of the plaintiff, notwithstanding a verdict for the defendant." The definition is accurate but narrower than modern usage: it frames the remedy as available only to plaintiffs. This reflects the English common law origin of the doctrine, where judgment n.o.v. developed as a plaintiff's remedy when the pleadings showed the defendant had no valid defense — making a verdict for the defendant legally untenable regardless of what the jury found.
American courts subsequently expanded the doctrine bidirectionally: defendants can now obtain judgment n.o.v. (or its Rule 50 equivalent) just as plaintiffs can. Rapalje & Lawrence's plaintiff-only framing is historically accurate for its period but would mislead a researcher applying it to twentieth-century or contemporary practice.
The historical sources do not address the preservation requirement or the relationship to directed verdict motions — concepts that developed primarily through twentieth-century procedural reform. This is an expected gap rather than an error, but it means historical dictionary entries give an incomplete picture of how the doctrine actually functions in practice.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Federal courts use "judgment as a matter of law" under Rule 50 and no longer formally employ the n.o.v. terminology, though the abbreviation and Latin phrase appear frequently in judicial opinions as shorthand. Many state courts — including those with codes modeled on pre-Rules practice — retain "judgment n.o.v." as a distinct procedural term with its own rules of preservation and timing. Researchers should not assume federal Rule 50 analysis controls in state court proceedings.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia:
— Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
— Civil Procedure: Post-Trial Motions
— Directed Verdict and Judgment as a Matter of Law
---