JNOV in Utah: The Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Under Rule 50(b)

The jury has returned a verdict. Your client lost. And yet the evidence — fairly reviewed — did not support the result. The jury heard testimony, saw exhibits, and reached a conclusion that no reasonable set of factfinders should have reached on the record before them.

Before filing a notice of appeal, Utah’s procedural rules give you a direct path to the judge who heard the case: the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). Practitioners still call it the JNOV — judgment notwithstanding the verdict — though that label was retired when Rule 50 was modernized. The concept is identical, and in the right case it is among the most powerful post-trial tools available.

This post explains how Rule 50(b) works, the critical preservation requirement that many litigants overlook, the standard courts apply, and why this motion matters so much for the appeal that follows.

---

What Is a JNOV?

JNOV stands for “judgment non obstante veredicto” — Latin for “judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” In plain terms, it is an order entering judgment for the moving party despite the jury’s verdict to the contrary. The court, acting as a check on the jury, concludes that the evidence was so deficient that no reasonable jury should have found as this one did — and enters judgment for the party that lost at trial.

Under the modern URCP Rule 50, the motion is called a “renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.” The name change was intentional: it clarifies that the post-trial motion is a continuation of a motion that must have been made during trial, not a freestanding post-verdict challenge.

---

The Two-Step Structure: Rule 50(a) and Rule 50(b)

Rule 50 operates in two stages, and understanding both is essential — because the second stage is only available if the first was done correctly.

Stage 1: Rule 50(a) — The Mid-Trial Motion

Before the case is submitted to the jury, any party may move for judgment as a matter of law. The motion may be made at the close of the opposing party’s evidence, at the close of all evidence, or both. The court may grant the motion outright, submit the case to the jury anyway, or reserve its decision.

The Rule 50(a) motion accomplishes two things: it asks the court to act immediately, and — critically — it preserves the issue for post-trial and appellate review. Without a Rule 50(a) motion during trial, there is nothing to renew after the verdict.

Stage 2: Rule 50(b) — The Renewed Post-Trial Motion

If the Rule 50(a) motion is denied or deferred, and the jury returns a verdict against the moving party, that party has 28 days after entry of judgment to file a renewed motion under Rule 50(b). The renewed motion may ask the court to:

• Enter judgment as a matter of law in the movant’s favor
• Order a new trial
• Do both conditionally — enter judgment, and if that is reversed on appeal, order a new trial

That last option — requesting new trial relief in the alternative — is important. The Utah Supreme Court has recognized that conditional new trial requests are proper under Rule 50(b), and the alternative request protects the moving party in the event the appellate court would order a new trial rather than direct entry of judgment.

---

The Preservation Trap: Why the Rule 50(a) Motion Is Not Optional

This is the single most consequential procedural requirement in all of post-trial practice, and the most frequently overlooked.

A Rule 50(b) motion is only available if a Rule 50(a) motion was made during trial. The post-trial motion is a “renewal” — if there is no predicate motion during trial, there is nothing to renew, and the court has no authority to grant the Rule 50(b) motion.

The consequences of failing to make the Rule 50(a) motion run deeper than losing the post-trial motion:

• On appeal, without a preserved Rule 50(b) motion, the Utah Court of Appeals will not conduct full de novo review of the sufficiency of the evidence. It will review only for plain error — a dramatically higher bar that requires showing the error was obvious, harmful, and affected substantial rights.
• Plain error review of evidence sufficiency is rarely successful. The failure to make the Rule 50(a) motion during trial effectively forecloses one of the most powerful appellate arguments available.

The lesson: in any jury trial where evidence sufficiency is a concern — and it should be assessed in every case — the Rule 50(a) motion must be made. It should be specific, identifying the claim or claims on which the evidence is insufficient and the legal standard the opposing party has failed to meet. A vague motion for “judgment as a matter of law on all issues” may not preserve specific sufficiency arguments adequately.

For more on how preservation works in Utah, see our guide to preserving issues for appeal through post-trial motions.

---

The Legal Standard

The standard for granting a Rule 50(b) motion is demanding — and intentionally so. Courts ask:

Viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor, is there a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party?

What this means in practice:

• The court does not weigh the evidence or assess credibility — those determinations belong to the jury
• The court views the record through the lens most favorable to the verdict winner
• The court asks not whether it would have reached the same result, but whether any reasonable jury could have
• The motion succeeds only when the evidence, so viewed, simply cannot support the verdict

This is a high bar. Most Rule 50(b) motions are denied. But the bar is not impossible, and in cases where the liability theory required an element the plaintiff’s evidence wholly failed to establish, or where the verdict rested entirely on speculation, the motion may succeed.

---

How Rule 50(b) Differs from Rule 59(a)

Both motions challenge the verdict. They operate on different legal ground:

The key practical difference: Rule 59 gives the trial court more flexibility. The “clear weight” standard lets the court weigh evidence itself — which means a court that is troubled by the verdict but not willing to say no reasonable jury could have reached it may grant a new trial under Rule 59 while denying the Rule 50(b) motion. Filing both, where appropriate, maximizes the options.

---

Timing and Its Effect on the Appeal Clock

A Rule 50(b) motion must be filed within 28 days of entry of judgment — the same non-extendable deadline that governs all primary post-trial motions. See our post-trial deadline guide for a complete breakdown.

A timely filing tolls the 30-day window for filing a notice of appeal under URAP Rule 4(b). The appellate clock does not restart until the trial court disposes of the Rule 50(b) motion. This means the Rule 50(b) motion gives the losing party additional time — not only to seek trial court relief, but to assess the appellate landscape based on how the trial court rules.

If the trial court grants the Rule 50(b) motion, the verdict winner becomes the appellant — it can appeal the JNOV order. If the trial court denies it, the losing party can appeal both the underlying verdict and the denial of the Rule 50(b) motion.

---

What Happens on Appeal

When the denial of a Rule 50(b) motion is appealed, the Utah Court of Appeals reviews the question de novo — applying the same standard the trial court should have applied, with no deference to the trial court’s conclusion. This is an exception to the deference that normally governs post-trial motion appeals.

The reason: the Rule 50(b) inquiry is a question of law. Whether a legally sufficient evidentiary basis exists for a jury’s verdict is a legal question, not a matter of the trial court’s discretion. The appellate court applies the same standard fresh.

If the appellate court agrees that no legally sufficient basis existed, it may:

• Direct entry of judgment for the appellant
• Order a new trial
• Remand for the trial court to determine whether a new trial is warranted

The conditional new trial request in the Rule 50(b) motion matters here: if the appellate court would order a new trial rather than direct a judgment, that option needs to have been preserved.

---

KEY RULE

URCP Rule 50 — Judgment as a Matter of Law

A Rule 50(b) renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law requires: (1) a Rule 50(a) motion during trial — without it, there is nothing to renew and the issue is relegated to plain error review on appeal; (2) filing within 28 days of entry of judgment; and (3) satisfying the demanding standard that, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no legally sufficient evidentiary basis exists for a reasonable jury to find in that party’s favor. The appellate court reviews denial of Rule 50(b) de novo — one of the few post-trial motion appeals governed by de novo rather than abuse of discretion review.

---

Evaluating Whether Rule 50(b) Applies to Your Case

The honest evaluation requires three questions: Was the Rule 50(a) motion made during trial? Is there a colorable argument that the evidence, viewed favorably to the verdict winner, could not support the verdict as a matter of law? And is Rule 50(b) the right motion — or is Rule 59’s “clear weight” standard a better fit for what actually happened at trial?

Those assessments are exactly what appellate co-counsel engagement during the post-trial phase provides. Lotus Appellate Law works with trial counsel after verdicts to evaluate which post-trial tools are appropriate, how to frame them for maximum appellate impact, and how to build the cleanest possible record for the Court of Appeals.