VERDICT CONTRARY TO LAW - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

VERDICT CONTRARY TO LAWAuthored

The Law Mind • 907 words

Definition

A verdict contrary to law is a jury verdict that conflicts with the legal instructions given to the jury by the court, regardless of whether those instructions were themselves correct statements of the law. The doctrine focuses on the jury's compliance with the court's directives, not on the abstract legal correctness of the outcome.

The concept is most commonly invoked as a ground for a motion for new trial or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. When a jury returns a finding that cannot be reconciled with the legal framework the judge provided — even if the judge misstated the law — the verdict may be set aside as contrary to law.

This distinguishes a verdict contrary to law from a verdict contrary to the evidence, which challenges the factual basis of the jury's conclusion rather than its adherence to legal instruction.

Common Confusion

VERDICT CONTRARY TO LAW vs. VERDICT CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE: These grounds for challenging a verdict are frequently conflated but rest on different foundations. A verdict contrary to law tests whether the jury followed the court's legal instructions; a verdict contrary to the evidence tests whether the jury's factual findings were supported by the record. A verdict can fail on one ground without failing on the other. Practitioners and courts occasionally use imprecise language that blurs this line, so researchers working in historical sources should read the surrounding procedural context carefully before classifying which challenge is being raised.

VERDICT CONTRARY TO LAW vs. ERROR IN INSTRUCTIONS: A verdict contrary to law does not require that the jury instructions were correct. If a jury ignores instructions — even flawed instructions — the verdict may still be set aside on this ground. The correctness of the underlying instructions is a separate appellate question involving error, not jury compliance.

Why It Matters in Research

The Bouvier's formulation — that a verdict is contrary to law when it contradicts the instructions "whether they are right or wrong" — is a precise and somewhat counterintuitive rule that does not always surface clearly in older case annotations. Researchers using 19th- and early 20th-century digests should watch for courts that conflate this ground with instructional error or insufficiency of the evidence, particularly in jurisdictions where the procedural vocabulary was not yet standardized.

This term appears most frequently in the context of motions for new trial, where it serves as one of several enumerated grounds. In historical pleading sources and early appellate records, the phrase "contrary to law" sometimes appears as a formulaic recitation in motion practice rather than a substantive legal argument, which can make it difficult to determine whether the ground was being taken seriously or was simply boilerplate.

In criminal cases, the doctrine intersects with jury nullification. When a jury acquits in the face of clear instructions to convict, the verdict is technically contrary to law — but double jeopardy protections in American jurisdictions generally foreclose any remedy. The doctrine therefore operates very differently depending on whether the verdict is a conviction or an acquittal, and researchers should not assume symmetry.

Jurisdictional variation in the procedural vehicles for raising this challenge (new trial motions, JNOV, arrest of judgment) means that indexing in older reporters may vary. A researcher looking for cases on this doctrine should search both the substantive label and the procedural mechanism through which it was raised.

Historical Dictionary Support

Bouvier's Law Dictionary provides the most direct historical formulation: a verdict is contrary to law when it is contrary to the court's instructions, whether those instructions are themselves legally correct or not, citing a Kentucky authority for the proposition. This is a compact but important definition because it draws the line at jury compliance rather than legal accuracy — a line that later procedural law has largely preserved.

The same volume's entries on special verdicts and general verdicts provide useful context. The special verdict tradition, in which juries found facts and left law to the court, reflects the underlying structural assumption of the contrary-to-law doctrine: that law is the court's province, and a jury that disregards legal instruction has acted outside its proper function. Bouvier's treatment of special verdicts notes that findings must address all material issues to sustain judgment — a parallel principle reinforcing the court's supervisory role over jury outputs.

What historical dictionaries do not address is the nullification tension: the practical consequence when a jury's disregard of instructions produces an acquittal that the legal system cannot unwind. That gap must be filled by case law and constitutional commentary rather than dictionary sources.

Jurisdictional Note

While the core principle is broadly shared across American jurisdictions, the procedural vehicle and standard for relief vary. Some states treat "contrary to law" as a separate enumerated ground for new trial; others subsume it within a broader "contrary to the evidence" standard or address it through directed verdict and JNOV mechanisms. Federal courts under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not use the phrase as a term of art in the same way, relying instead on Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions.

VERDICT CONTRARY TO LAWmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

facts are found, and the law is submitted to the judges. 4 Rand. 504; 1 Wash. C. C. 499; 2 Mas. 81. The jury may find a special verdict in criminal cases, but they are not obliged in any case to do 80; Cooley, Const. Lim. 398. The special ver- dict or findings of a jury in order to sus- tain a judgment, must pass upon all the material issues made in the pleadings so as to enable the court to say upon the plead- ings and verdict, without looking at the evidence, which party is entitled to judg- ment; 40 Minn. 375; 48 id. 897; 88 id. 260; 150 U. S. 597. A special verdict need only find such facts as are alleged in the plead- ings upon one side and denied upon the other; 69 Tex. 124. The jury have an option, instead of finding the negative or affirmative of the issue, as in a general verdict, to find all the facts of the case as disclosed by the evidence before them, and, after so setting them forth, to conclude to the following effect: That they are ignorant, in point of law, on which side they ought upon those facts to find the issue; that if upon the whole matter the court shall be of opinion that the issue is proved for the plaintiff, they find for the plaintiff accordingly, the damages at such a sum, etc.; if the court are of an opposite opinion, they find for defend- ant. This form of finding is called a special ver- dict. In practice they have nothing to do with the formal preparation of the special verdict. When it is agreed that a verdict of that kind is to be given, the jury merely declare their opinion as to any fact remaining in doubt, and then the verdict is adjusted without their further interference. It is settled under the correction of the judge, by the counsel on either side, according to the state of the facts as found by the jury, with respect to all particulars on which they have delivered an opinion, and, with respect to other particulars, according to the state of facts which it is agreed that they ought to find upon the evidence before them. The special verdict, when its form is thus settled, is, together with the whole proceedings on the trial, then entered on record; and the question of law, arising on the facts found, is argued before the court in banc; 8 Bla. Com. 377. There is another method of finding a special ver- dict: this is when the jury find a verdict generally for the plaintiff, but subject nevertheless to the opinion of the judges or the court above on a special case, stated by the counsel on both sides, with regard to a matter of law; 8 Bla. Com. 878. See 10 Mass. 64; 11 id. 858. A juror may dissent at any time from a verdict to which he had before agreed until the same is recorded; 15 Am. L. Rev. 423. A mistake in the ver- dict may be corrected before it is recorded and the jury discharged; 98 N. C. 678. Where a jury being equally divided in opinion come to an agreement by lot, it was formerly held that its verdict was legitimate; 1 Keble 811; but such verdicts are now held to be illegal, and will be set aside. The "quotient" verdict is so called from the fact that the jurors, having agreed to find for the plaintiff, further agree that their verdict shall be in such sum as is ascertained by each juror privately marking down the sum of money to which he thinks the plaintiff entitled, the total of these sums being divided by twelve. This method is almost univer sally condemned, the ground of the objection being that such an agreement cuts off all deliberation on the part of the jurors, and places it in the power of one of their number by naming a sum extravagantly high or ridiculously low to make the quotient un- reasonably large or small; 6 Sm. & M. 35; 1 Wash. Ty. 329; 134 Ind. 166; so of a verdict in a criminal case fixing the term of imprisonment; 30 Tex. Cr. Rep. 156; contra, in the case of a fine in a criminal case for libel; 95 Ky. 322. But where the calcula- tion is purely informal, for the purpose of ascer taining the sense of the jury, the objection is ob- viated, and the verdict will stand; 1 Humph. 399; 93

VERDICT CONTRARY TO LAWmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

A "verdict" is "contrary to law" when it is contrary to the instructions whether they VERDICT, SPECIAL are right or wrong. 132 Ky. 241, 116 S. W 693. VERDICT, SPECIAL. See AGREED CASE; CASE STATED.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In