jnov motion in North Carolina

2008Concomitant with a JNOV motion, a party may move for new trial, a motion which is "addressed to the discretion of the trial court and is strictly limited to whether the record affirmatively shows a manifest abuse of discretion by the trial judge." Streeter, 133 N.C.

2008"A JNOV motion pursuant to Rule 50 seeks entry of judgment in accordance with the movant's earlier motion for directed verdict, notwithstanding the contrary verdict actually returned by the jury." Streeter v. Cotton, 133 N.C.

2025Plasma Ctrs., 222 N.C. App. at 88 .

2025Although this Court has never expressly adopted this rule, there is a long line of Court of Appeals case law holding that to “have standing after the verdict to move for JNOV, a party must have made a directed verdict motion at trial on the specific issue which is the basis of the JNOV.” Plasma Ctrs. of Am., LLC v. Talecris Plasma Res., Inc., 222 N.C. App. 83, 87 (2012) (cleaned up) (emphasis added).

2020Holiness Ch. of God, 136 N.C. App. 493, 499 , 524 S.E.2d 591, 595 (2000).

2014The standard of review for a JNOV motion is the same as that regarding the denial of a directed verdict motion — that is, “whether the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury.” Tomika Invs., Inc. v. Macedonia True Vine Pentecostal Holiness Church of God, Inc., 136 N.C.

2013App. 142, 161 , 683 S.E.2d 728, 742 (2009) (“[Defendant’s] arguments . . . repeat the contentions we found unpersuasive regarding its JNOV motion.

2010App.-,-, 683 S.E.2d 728, 742 (2009) (“O’Charley’s’ arguments [regarding its motions for a new trial] . . . repeat the contentions we found unpersuasive regarding its JNOV motion.

2003App. 413, 418 , 328 S.E.2d 810, 815 (1985), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 315 N.C. 523 , 340 S.E.2d 408 (1986), and thus must be preceded by a motion for directed verdict at the close of all evidence.

1999App. 413, 418 , 328 S.E.2d 810, 815 (1985), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 315 N.C. 523 , 340 S.E.2d 408 (1986), and thus must be preceded by a motion for directed verdict at the close of all evidence.

2000See G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50(b); Northern Nat’l Life Ins. v. Miller Machine Co., 311 N.C. 62, 69 , 316 S.E.2d 256, 261 (1984).

2000See G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50(b); Northern Nat’l Life Ins. v. Miller Machine Co., 311 N.C. 62, 69 , 316 S.E.2d 256, 261 (1984).

2000However, defendant also moved for a directed verdict and JNOV, see Abels v. Renfro Corp., 335 N.C. 209, 214 , 436 S.E.2d 822, 825 (1993) (JNOV motion essentially renewal of earlier directed verdict motion and same standard of review therefore applicable), on the issue of plaintiffs contributory negligence.

2000However, defendant also moved for a directed verdict and JNOV, see Abels v. Renfro Corp., 335 N.C. 209, 214 , 436 S.E.2d 822, 825 (1993) (JNOV motion essentially renewal of earlier directed verdict motion and same standard of review therefore applicable), on the issue of plaintiffs contributory negligence.

2011A JNOV motion is “essentially a renewal of a motion for directed verdictf.]” Smith v. Price, 74 N.C.

2003A JNOV motion is “essentially a renewal of a motion for directed verdict,” Smith v. Price, 74 N.C.

2025Consequently, “[t]he legal standard applied to a JNOV motion is quite demanding.” Moody, ___ N.C. at ___, 912 S.E.2d at 791.

2025Of note, “[t]he legal standard applied to a JNOV motion is quite demanding and the motion should be granted ‘cautiously and sparingly.’” Id. at 379, 912 S.E.2d at 791 (quoting Bryant v. Nationwide Mut.

2016Id. at 722-23 , 693 S.E.2d at 644 -45 . *454 In Hudgins v. Wagoner, 204 N.C.App. 480 , 694 S.E.2d 436 (2010), disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 88 , 706 S.E.2d 250 (2011), the defendants argued that the trial court erred in denying their JNOV motion concerning an award of punitive damages because insufficient evidence existed for the award of such damages.

2016Id. at 722-23 , 693 S.E.2d at 644 -45 . *454 In Hudgins v. Wagoner, 204 N.C.App. 480 , 694 S.E.2d 436 (2010), disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 88 , 706 S.E.2d 250 (2011), the defendants argued that the trial court erred in denying their JNOV motion concerning an award of punitive damages because insufficient evidence existed for the award of such damages.

2006App. 168 , 506 S.E.2d 267 (1998) (holding that trial court erred in failing to grant defendant’s JNOV motion on the issue of fraudulent conveyance where the plaintiff produced insufficient evidence of the debtor’s intent to defraud its creditors), and the failure to plead it is not a mere technicality.

1999See Norman Owen Trucking, Inc. v. Morkoski, 131 N.C.

2025The motion “is essentially a renewal of an earlier motion for directed verdict.” Jones v. Corn, 293 N.C. App. 596 , 602, 902 S.E.2d 17 , 23 (2024) (citation omitted); see Martin v. Pope, 257 N.C. App. 641, 644 , 811 S.E.2d 191, 194 (2018) (“[A] directed verdict motion is an ‘absolute prerequisite’ to a JNOV motion.” (citation omitted)).

2025The motion “is essentially a renewal of an earlier motion for directed verdict.” Jones v. Corn, 293 N.C. App. 596 , 602, 902 S.E.2d 17 , 23 (2024) (citation omitted); see Martin v. Pope, 257 N.C. App. 641, 644 , 811 S.E.2d 191, 194 (2018) (“[A] directed verdict motion is an ‘absolute prerequisite’ to a JNOV motion.” (citation omitted)).

2025On appeal, “questions concerning the sufficiency of the evidence to withstand a Rule 50 motion for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict present an issue of law[.]” Jones v. Durham Anesthesia Assocs., P.A., 185 N.C. App. 504, 508 , 648 S.E.2d 531, 535 (2007) (citation omitted).

2025On appeal, “questions concerning the sufficiency of the evidence to withstand a Rule 50 motion for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict present an issue of law[.]” Jones v. Durham Anesthesia Assocs., P.A., 185 N.C. App. 504, 508 , 648 S.E.2d 531, 535 (2007) (citation omitted).

2020See Penley v. Penley, 314 N.C. 1 , 9 n.1, 332 S.E.2d 51 , 56 n.1 (1985). 20.

2020See Penley v. Penley, 314 N.C. 1 , 9 n.1, 332 S.E.2d 51 , 56 n.1 (1985). 20.

2019App. at 564 , 551 S.E.2d at 871 (holding that plaintiff failed to preserve assignment of error as to trial court's denial of JNOV motion where plaintiff failed to specify ground in directed verdict motion).

2016See State Props., LLC v. Ray, 155 N.C.App. 65 , 72, 574 S.E.2d 180 , 186 (2002) (noting existence of some evidence supporting defendants' argument on appeal but disregarding that evidence in reviewing trial court's ruling on defendants' *446 JNOV motion because "[a]ll conflicts in the evidence are to be resolved in the nonmovant's favor" (citation omitted)), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 694 , 577 S.E.2d 889 (2003).

2016See State Props., LLC v. Ray, 155 N.C.App. 65 , 72, 574 S.E.2d 180 , 186 (2002) (noting existence of some evidence supporting defendants' argument on appeal but disregarding that evidence in reviewing trial court's ruling on defendants' *446 JNOV motion because "[a]ll conflicts in the evidence are to be resolved in the nonmovant's favor" (citation omitted)), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 694 , 577 S.E.2d 889 (2003).

2016See State Props., LLC v. Ray, 155 N.C.App. 65 , 72, 574 S.E.2d 180 , 186 (2002) (noting existence of some evidence supporting defendants' argument on appeal but disregarding that evidence in reviewing trial court's ruling on defendants' *446 JNOV motion because "[a]ll conflicts in the evidence are to be resolved in the nonmovant's favor" (citation omitted)), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 694 , 577 S.E.2d 889 (2003).

2016See State Props., LLC v. Ray, 155 N.C.App. 65 , 72, 574 S.E.2d 180 , 186 (2002) (noting existence of some evidence supporting defendants' argument on appeal but disregarding that evidence in reviewing trial court's ruling on defendants' *446 JNOV motion because "[a]ll conflicts in the evidence are to be resolved in the nonmovant's favor" (citation omitted)), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 694 , 577 S.E.2d 889 (2003).

2010As an initial matter, defendants’ arguments raise two questions: (1) whether there was an offer and acceptance of the terms of employment, and (2) “if so, were the terms agreed upon sufficiently definite and certain to give rise to a contract enforceable by a court of law?” Williams v. Jones, 322 N.C. 42, 48 , 366 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1988) (upholding trial court’s denial of JNOV motion).

2010As an initial matter, defendants’ arguments raise two questions: (1) whether there was an offer and acceptance of the terms of employment, and (2) “if so, were the terms agreed upon sufficiently definite and certain to give rise to a contract enforceable by a court of law?” Williams v. Jones, 322 N.C. 42, 48 , 366 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1988) (upholding trial court’s denial of JNOV motion).