Rule 72.01.Motion for a Directed Verdict and for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.

Part I · Rule 72: Motion for a Directed Verdict and for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict · Last amended January 1, 1994 · Last verified July 22, 2026

In one sentenceRule 72.01 sets the procedure for moving for a directed verdict during trial and, if that motion isn't granted, for moving after the verdict for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), including how the court handles a companion motion for new trial and what each side may argue on appeal.

Full Text of Rule 72.01

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) Motion for Directed Verdict: When Made: Effect. A party may move for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent. The filing of such motion does not constitute a waiver of movant’s right to offer evidence to the same extent as if the motion had not been made. A motion which is not granted is not a waiver of trial by jury even though all parties to the action have moved for directed verdicts. A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor. The order of the court granting a motion for a directed verdict is effective without any assent of the jury.

(b) Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. A party may move for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. Whenever such motion is denied or for any reason is not granted, the court is deemed to have submitted the action to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal questions raised by the motion. Not later than thirty days after entry of judgment, a party who has moved for a directed verdict may move to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment entered in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict; or if a verdict was not returned, such party, within thirty days after the jury has been discharged, may move for judgment in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict. A motion for a new trial may be joined with this motion, or a new trial may be prayed for in the alternative. If a verdict was returned the court may allow the judgment to stand or may reopen the judgment and either order a new trial or direct the entry of judgment as if the requested verdict had been directed. If no verdict was returned the court may direct the entry of judgment as if the requested verdict had been directed or may order a new trial.

(1) If the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict provided for in subdivision (b) of this Rule, is granted, the court shall also rule on the motion for a new trial, if any, by determining whether it should be granted if the judgment is thereafter vacated or reversed, and shall specify the grounds for granting or denying the motion for the new trial. If the motion for a new trial is thus conditionally granted, the order thereon does not affect the finality of the judgment. In case the motion for a new trial has been conditionally granted and the judgment is reversed on appeal, the new trial shall proceed unless the appellate court has otherwise ordered. In case the motion for new trial has been conditionally denied, the respondent on appeal may assert error in that denial; and if the judgment is reversed on appeal, subsequent proceedings shall be in accordance with the order of the appellate court.

(2) The party whose judgment has been set aside on the motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict, may upon appeal from the resulting adverse judgment, in addition to urging that the trial court erred in sustaining the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also brief and argue and the appellate court may determine, whether the appellant is, in any event, entitled to a new trial.

(d) Same: Denial of Motion. If the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is denied, the party who prevailed on that motion, as respondent, may assert grounds entitling the party to a new trial in the event the appellate court concludes that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, nothing in this Rule 72.01 precludes it from determining that the respondent is entitled to a new trial or from directing the court to determine whether a new trial shall be granted.

End

Amendment History

Adopted April 10, 1974, eff. Jan. 1, 1975. Amended June 1, 1993, eff. Jan. 1, 1994; Amended Sept. 28, 1993, eff. Jan. 1, 1994.

Plain-English Summary

Rule 72.01 is Missouri's directed-verdict and judgment-notwithstanding-the-verdict rule, and it keeps that older terminology instead of adopting the "judgment as a matter of law" label used in some other jurisdictions. Under paragraph (a), a party may move for a directed verdict at the close of the opponent's evidence, and filing that motion doesn't waive the movant's right to keep offering evidence. A motion that isn't granted doesn't waive the right to a jury trial, even if every party has moved for a directed verdict. The motion has to state its specific grounds, and a court order granting it takes effect without needing the jury's assent.

Paragraph (b) covers the JNOV motion: a party may also move for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, and if that's denied or not granted, the court is treated as having submitted the case to the jury subject to later resolution of the legal questions the motion raised. Within thirty days after judgment (or after the jury is discharged if there was no verdict), that party may move to set aside the verdict and judgment and have judgment entered as the directed-verdict motion requested, and may join or make an alternative motion for new trial. Depending on whether a verdict came back, the court can let the judgment stand, reopen it and order a new trial, or direct entry of judgment as though the directed verdict had been granted.

Paragraph (c) handles what happens when the court grants JNOV: it must also conditionally rule on any motion for new trial, stating whether that motion would be granted if the judgment is later vacated or reversed. A conditional grant doesn't affect the judgment's finality, but if the appellate court reverses, the new trial goes forward unless that court orders otherwise; if the new-trial motion was conditionally denied, the party who lost that ruling can raise it on appeal. The party whose judgment was set aside by JNOV can argue on appeal both that the JNOV was wrong and, separately, that a new trial is warranted regardless. Paragraph (d) gives similar protection to the party who prevailed on a denied JNOV motion: as respondent on appeal, that party may argue grounds for a new trial in case the appellate court decides the JNOV motion should have been granted.

Frequently Asked Questions

What's the difference between a motion for directed verdict and a motion for JNOV under Rule 72.01?

A motion for directed verdict is made during trial, at the close of an opponent's evidence or at the close of all the evidence; a motion for JNOV comes after the verdict, asking the court to set aside the verdict and judgment and enter judgment as the earlier directed-verdict motion requested.

When must a party move for JNOV after the verdict?

Not later than thirty days after entry of judgment, or, if no verdict was returned, within thirty days after the jury is discharged.

Does moving for a directed verdict waive the right to keep presenting evidence?

No, filing the motion doesn't constitute a waiver of the movant's right to offer evidence to the same extent as if the motion had not been made.

What happens to a motion for new trial when the court grants JNOV?

The court must also rule on the new-trial motion conditionally, stating whether it would be granted if the judgment is later vacated or reversed, and that conditional ruling doesn't affect the judgment's finality.

Can the party who lost the directed-verdict motion still argue for a new trial on appeal?

Yes, as respondent, that party may assert grounds entitling it to a new trial in case the appellate court concludes the trial court erred in denying the JNOV motion.

Is 'judgment as a matter of law' the same as Missouri's directed verdict and JNOV motions?

Missouri's Rule 72.01 uses the terms directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict instead of the judgment-as-a-matter-of-law label used elsewhere, but the two concepts serve a similar function of testing whether the evidence supports submitting or sustaining a verdict.

Source & verification. Rule text and amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Missouri State & Federal Court Rules, adopted by the Supreme Court of Missouri. Last verified July 22, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: directed verdictJNOVjudgment notwithstanding the verdictJMOLmotion for judgment as a matter of lawconditional new trial ruling