Group VI: Trials · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 14, 2026
Drafter’s Note, Amendment Effective January 1, 2005: When Nevada adopted the rule, the federal rule was revised to eliminate language in subdivision (c) of the federal rule that permits the court to impanel an advisory jury on its own motion. The court accepted the Advisory Committee’s recommendation that the Nevada rule retain this distinction from the federal rule. Thus, there are no amendments to this rule.
Advisory Committee Note — 2019 Amendment: Rule 39 tracks FRCP 39 but retains Nevada-specific advisory-jury provisions.
Rule 39 picks up where a jury demand under Rule 38 leaves off. If a demand was properly made, the case is labeled a jury action and every issue covered by that demand goes to the jury — unless the parties agree on the record to try it without one, or the court decides, on its own or on motion, that no right to a jury exists for some or all of those issues. Issues nobody validly demanded a jury for go to the judge, though the court retains discretion to order a jury on those issues anyway.
The rule also covers cases where no party ever had a right to a jury in the first place, such as claims that are inherently equitable. There, a judge deciding the case alone can still choose to seat an advisory jury on any issue, using its verdict as guidance rather than a binding decision. Nevada’s version of this rule keeps that option limited to a court-initiated motion rather than letting the court do it entirely on its own, a deliberate departure from the federal version. Separately, if every party agrees, the court may let a jury decide an issue with the same binding force a jury verdict would carry as a matter of right.
Once a party validly demands a jury under Rule 38, the action is designated a jury action and every demanded issue is tried by jury, unless the parties stipulate to a bench trial or the court finds no right to a jury exists on some or all of those issues.
In a case where no party has a right to a jury trial, the court may still convene a jury to hear an issue and give a verdict, but that verdict is only advisory — the judge remains the one who decides the outcome.
Yes. If every party consents, the court may let a jury decide an issue with the same binding effect a jury trial would carry as a matter of right.
Yes, issues not properly demanded for jury trial are tried by the court. The court still has discretion to order a jury trial on those issues if it chooses.
No. Nevada’s rule departs from its federal counterpart on this point — an advisory jury under Rule 39 comes only on motion, not purely at the court’s own initiative.