Judges have a number of devices available to them to control juries. Among these are special verdicts, which limit juries to finding special issues of fact to which the judge applies the law and renders a verdict; directed verdicts, which remove cases from jury consideration after the presentation of the evidence; and judgments notwithstanding the verdict (judgment n.o.v.), which allow the trial judges to enter verdicts contrary to those found by juries. The judgment n.o.v. gives the trial judge the greatest opportunity to control the jury. Upon motion of the dissatisfied party, the judge reconsiders the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's finding. The standard the judge uses to determine the sufficiency -- the common law 'any evidence' standard in which the jury is dominant, or the more modern 'overwhelming evidence' standard in which the judge is dominant -- affects the balance of power between judge and jury and, hence, the constitutional right of the litigants to a jury trial. The existence of the multiple standards has caused confusion in the case law within court systems and jurisdictions. A return to the 'any evidence' standard will clear up the confusion in the courts and reinstate the jury to its constitutionally mandated position of supremacy in determining the outcomes in civil trials. The article contains 84 footnotes.