Definition
NOV is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase *non obstante veredicto*, meaning "notwithstanding the verdict." A judgment NOV (also written as judgment n.o.v.) is a ruling by a trial court judge that overrides or reverses a jury's verdict after the jury has returned its decision. The judge effectively substitutes the court's legal judgment for the jury's factual finding, concluding that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict it did on the evidence presented at trial.
The standard for granting a judgment NOV mirrors that of a directed verdict: the moving party must show that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, was legally insufficient to support the jury's conclusion. A judge will not grant a judgment NOV simply because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence — that is the standard for a new trial, not for judgment NOV.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Abbreviation for November.
Historical common usage: Not applicable; "nov" has no independent common meaning in Webster's 1913.
The abbreviation NOV in legal writing has no relationship to the calendar month. In any pleading, motion practice record, or appellate document, NOV refers exclusively to *non obstante veredicto* and functions as a shorthand for a specific post-verdict procedural remedy.
Common Confusion
NOV is frequently confused with JNOV (judgment notwithstanding the verdict), which is simply the fully written-out modern formulation of the same concept — the "J" making explicit what "judgment NOV" already implied. The two labels describe identical relief.
NOV is also sometimes confused with a motion for a new trial. Both are post-verdict remedies, but they differ in result: a judgment NOV replaces the jury's verdict with a judgment for the moving party and ends the case; a new trial order vacates the verdict and sends the matter back for retrial. Courts sometimes condition a judgment NOV with an alternative order for a new trial, precisely because the two remedies serve different functions and courts of appeals handle them differently on review.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (post-1991 amendments), the preferred term is "judgment as a matter of law" (JMOL) under Rule 50(b), and the phrase "judgment NOV" or "JNOV" was formally retired in federal practice. Researchers working with federal materials after 1991 will find JMOL used where older sources say NOV. State court practice varies; many jurisdictions continue using NOV or JNOV terminology.
Why It Matters in Research
The terminological shift in federal practice is the most significant trap for corpus researchers. Pre-1991 federal cases and virtually all older treatises use "judgment NOV" or "JNOV." Post-1991 federal materials use "judgment as a matter of law" or "JMOL" under Rule 50(b). A keyword search using only one term will miss substantial authority from the other period. Researchers analyzing federal post-verdict motion practice must run parallel searches across both terminological eras.
State court materials are inconsistent. Some states adopted JMOL language to track the federal rules; others retained NOV or JNOV. This means the same procedural remedy may appear under three different names within a single multi-jurisdictional research project.
Historical sources — including Burrill — do not address NOV as a procedural term in the modern sense, because the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as a formal post-trial remedy developed largely in the twentieth century. Researchers should not expect pre-twentieth-century dictionaries to be useful guides to the doctrine's requirements or history.
The standard of review on appeal also makes the NOV/new trial distinction practically important in research: denial of a judgment NOV is reviewed de novo on the sufficiency question, while orders granting or denying new trials are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Cases litigating one often involve the other, so research on either remedy should account for both.
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary does not contain a substantive entry for NOV as an abbreviation for *non obstante veredicto*. The excerpt provided from Burrill relates to *notio* (a term for judicial cognizance or jurisdiction) and is unrelated to NOV in its procedural sense. This absence is expected: the judgment NOV as a codified post-trial motion is a twentieth-century development. Burrill and other nineteenth-century legal dictionaries are not useful sources for this term's doctrinal content.
The Latin phrase *non obstante* itself has a longer history — it appears in early English statutes and royal grants as a clause authorizing action "notwithstanding" contrary law or prior restrictions — but the specific procedural application to jury verdicts post-dates the classical law dictionary era.
Jurisdictional Note
Federal practice uses JMOL (Rule 50(b)) exclusively after 1991; the terms NOV and JNOV no longer appear in the federal rules. State courts are split: some follow the federal terminology shift, others retain NOV or JNOV. Researchers should confirm which label a target jurisdiction uses before relying on keyword searches alone.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT; see also DIRECTED VERDICT; JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.