abuse its discretion by denying respondent’s motion for a new trial on damages? V. Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying respondent’s motion for remittitur? ANALYSIS I. Thompson argues that the district court erred by denying her motion for JNOV. The decision whether to grant JNOV is a question of law, Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke, 277 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Minn.1979), and we review questions of law de novo, Frost-Benco Elec. Ass’n v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 358 N.W.2d 639, 642 (Minn.1984). The denial of a motion for JNOV must be affirmed if there is “any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict.” Pouliot v. Fitzsimmons, 582 N.W.2d 221, 224 (Minn.1998) (quotation omitted); see also Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., 389 N.W.2d 194, 198 (Minn.1986) (<HOLDING>). But if “the jury’s verdict cannot be
holding more generally that a verdict may be sustained based on circumstantial evidence alone if that cireumstantial evidence supports a reasonable inference of guilt holding that a jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on the evidence holding that the verdict must be sustained if there is any competent evidence to support the verdict holding that a motion denying summary judgment will not be reviewed on appeal from a jury verdict where sufficient evidence supports the jurys verdict recognizing this court will uphold a general verdict if evidence on any one count issue or theory sustains the verdict citations omitted