(1) if a verdict was returned: (A) allow the judgment to stand, (B) order a new trial, or (C) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law; or (2) if no verdict was returned: (A) order a new trial, or (B) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (c) Granting Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; Conditional Rulings; New Trial Motion. (1) If the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted, the court shall also rule on the motion for 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 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 a new trial has been conditionally denied, the appellee 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) Any motion for a new trial under Rule 59 by a party against whom judgment as a matter of law is rendered shall be filed not later than 10 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment. [Added; effective March 16, 1964; Amended effective January 1, 2005.] (d) Same: Denial of Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. If the motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied, the party who prevailed on that motion may, as appellee, 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. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, nothing in this rule precludes it from determining that the appellee is entitled to a new trial, or from directing the trial court to determine whether a new trial shall be granted. [Added; effective March 16, 1964; Amended effective January 1, 2005.] Drafter’s Note 2004 Amendment The rule is revised in its entirety. The revised rule adopts the “judgment as a matter of law” terminology from the 1991 amendments to the federal rule. Subdivision (a)(1) sets forth the standard for granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law. It is not the same as the federal standard; rather, the revised subdivision (a)(1) of the Nevada rule incorporates language from former Rule 41(b), thus incorporating the standard used to decide a motion to dismiss under former Rule 41(b). The new subdivision (a) replaces part of Rule 41(b), which had authorized a dismissal at the close of a plaintiff’s case if the plaintiff had “failed to prove a sufficient case for the . . . jury.” The revised subdivision (a)(2) also differs from the federal rule in the timing of a motion for judgment as a matter of law and authorizes a motion at the close of the evidence offered by the nonmoving party or at the close of the case, rather than at any time as permitted under the federal rule. Subdivision (b) is amended to conform to the 1991 amendment to the federal rule. The Nevada rule was amended in 1971 to delete the requirement under the then-existing federal rule that a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict did not lie unless it was preceded by a motion for a directed verdict. The revised rule takes the same approach as the federal rule, as amended in 1963 and 1991, that a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law is a renewal of an earlier motion made before or at the close of evidence. Thus, a “renewed” motion filed under subdivision (b) must have been preceded by a motion filed at the time permitted by subdivision (a)(2). The Nevada rule retains the “notice of entry of judgment” language from former subdivision (b) as the starting point for the 10-day time limit for filing a post-verdict motion under the rule. Subdivisions (c) and (d) are amended to conform the language of the former provisions to the change in diction set forth in subdivision (a) of the revised rule. Subdivision (c)(2) requires that a motion for a new trial under Rule 59 by a party against whom judgment as a matter of law is rendered shall be filed no later than 10 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment. Under former subdivision (c)(2), the motion had to be served no later than 10 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict. RULE 51. INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY; OBJECTIONS; PRESERVING A CLAIM OF ERROR (a) Written Requests; Format. (1) A party may, at the close of the evidence or at such earlier time as the court reasonably directs, file written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the requests. The written requests shall be in the format directed by the court. If a party relies on statute, rule or case law to support or object to a requested instruction, the party shall provide a citation to or a copy of the precedent. An original and one copy of each instruction requested by a party shall be filed with the court. The copies shall be appropriately numbered and indicate who filed them. (2) After the close of the evidence, a party may: (A) file requests for instructions on issues that could not reasonably have been anticipated at an earlier time for requests set under Rule 51(a)(1), and (B) with the court’s permission file untimely requests for instructions on any issue. [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.] (b) Instructions. (1) The court: (A) shall inform counsel of its proposed instructions and proposed action on the requests before instructing the jury and before the arguments to the jury; and (B) must give the parties an opportunity to object on the record and out of the jury’s hearing to the proposed instructions and actions on requests before the instructions and arguments are delivered.

Vegas Law