Rule 50.Judgment as a matter of law in a jury trial; related motion for a new trial; conditional ruling
Group VI: Trials · Last amended March 1, 2019 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 50 lets a trial court take an issue away from the jury when the evidence could not support a reasonable finding for one side, either mid-trial through a motion for judgment as a matter of law or, after the verdict, through a renewed version of that motion that functions as what many lawyers still call a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or JNOV.
(1)In General. If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:
(A)resolve the issue against the party; and
(B)grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.
(2)Motion. A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.
(b)Renewing the Motion After Trial; Alternative Motion for a New Trial. If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. No later than 28 days after service of written notice of entry of judgment—or if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged—the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59. The time for filing the motion cannot be extended under Rule 6(b). In ruling on the renewed motion, the court may:
(1)allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict;
(2)order a new trial; or
(3)direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.
(c)Granting the Renewed Motion; Conditional Ruling on a Motion for a New Trial.
(1)In General. If the court grants a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, it must also conditionally rule on any motion for a new trial by determining whether a new trial should be granted if the judgment is later vacated or reversed. The court must state the grounds for conditionally granting or denying the motion for a new trial.
(2)Effect of a Conditional Ruling. Conditionally granting the motion for a new trial does not affect the judgment’s finality; if the judgment is reversed, the new trial must proceed unless the appellate court orders otherwise. If the motion for a new trial is conditionally denied, the appellee may assert error in that denial; if the judgment is reversed, the case must proceed as the appellate court orders.
(d)Time for a Losing Party’s New-Trial Motion. Any motion for a new trial under Rule 59 by a party against whom judgment as a matter of law is rendered must be filed no later than 28 days after service of written notice of entry of judgment. The time for filing the motion cannot be extended under Rule 6(b).
(e)Denying the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; Reversal on Appeal. If the court denies the motion for judgment as a matter of law, the prevailing party may, as appellee, assert grounds entitling it to a new trial should the appellate court conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, it may order a new trial, direct the trial court to determine whether a new trial should be granted, or direct the entry of judgment.
Notes
Drafter’s Note, Amendment Effective January 1, 2005: 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. The cases annotated with this rule were decided prior to the amendment effective January 1, 2005, and reflect terminology used prior to the “judgment as a matter of law” language introduced in that amendment. Cases decided under former NRCP 41(b), concerning motions for involuntary dismissal, have been annotated with this rule as the amendment effective January 1, 2005, incorporates the language of that former provision in subdivision (a)(1) of this rule.
Advisory Committee Note — 2019 Amendment: Consistent with FRCP 50, Rule 50 extends the time periods in former Rule 50(b) and (d) to 28 days. Rule 50(a)(2) permits a motion for judgment as a matter of law at any time before the case is submitted to the jury, instead of at the close of the opposing party’s evidence or at the close of the case.
Before the case ever reaches the jury, either side can ask the court to resolve an issue as a matter of law. The standard is whether a reasonable jury would lack a legally sufficient basis to find for a party on that issue; if so, the court can resolve the issue against that party and, where the underlying claim or defense only survives with a favorable finding on that issue, grant judgment against the party outright. Nevada lets this motion be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury, a broader window than the older rule, which tied the motion to the close of the evidence. Whenever it is filed, the motion has to specify the judgment being sought and the law and facts that support it, a bare request without reasoning will not do.
If the court does not grant that pre-verdict motion, and the case still goes to the jury, the rule treats the submission as conditional, the court has effectively reserved the legal question for later. That sets up the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, the modern name for what practitioners elsewhere call a JNOV or judgment notwithstanding the verdict motion. The movant has 28 days after service of notice of entry of judgment, or, if a verdict never resolved the relevant issue, 28 days after the jury is discharged, to renew the motion, and that deadline cannot be stretched under Rule 6(b). Because it is a renewal, it has to trace back to an earlier motion made before the case was submitted to the jury; a party cannot raise judgment as a matter of law for the first time after the verdict comes in. The renewed motion can be paired with an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59, and the court, in ruling on it, may let the verdict stand, order a new trial, or direct entry of judgment as a matter of law.
When the court grants a renewed motion and displaces the jury's verdict, it also has to rule, conditionally, on any linked new-trial request, deciding now whether a new trial should follow if the judgment it just entered gets vacated or reversed later, and stating its reasons either way. That conditional ruling does not undermine the judgment's finality; if the judgment is reversed on appeal, a conditionally granted new trial goes forward unless the appellate court says otherwise, and a conditionally denied new-trial request can still be challenged by the appellee if reversal occurs. The party whose verdict was displaced gets its own 28-day window, running from notice of entry of judgment, to move for a new trial under Rule 59. And if the trial court denies a motion for judgment as a matter of law outright, the prevailing party is not left exposed, it can argue on appeal, as appellee, that it deserves a new trial if the appellate court concludes the trial court should have granted the motion, and on reversal the appellate court can order a new trial itself, send the question back to the trial court, or direct entry of judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Nevada's judgment as a matter of law the same thing as a motion for a directed verdict?
Functionally, yes. Nevada adopted the judgment as a matter of law terminology from the federal rule, replacing the older directed-verdict language, but the mid-trial motion under Rule 50(a) serves the same purpose.
Is a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law the same as a JNOV or judgment notwithstanding the verdict motion?
Yes. The renewed motion under Rule 50(b) is the modern name for the same post-verdict motion long known as a JNOV or judgment notwithstanding the verdict motion.
How long do I have to file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law after trial?
28 days after service of written notice of entry of judgment, or, if the motion concerns a jury issue the verdict never decided, 28 days after the jury was discharged. That deadline cannot be extended under Rule 6(b).
Can I file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law if I never moved for it before the case went to the jury?
No. The post-verdict motion is a renewal, it has to follow an earlier motion for judgment as a matter of law made before the case was submitted to the jury.
If the court grants my renewed motion and throws out the verdict, what happens to a pending new-trial request?
The court must rule on it too, conditionally, deciding now whether a new trial should be granted if its judgment is later vacated or reversed, so that question is already answered if the case goes up on appeal.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Advisory Committee
Notes, and amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure, adopted by the Supreme Court of Nevada. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:JMOL nevadaJNOV nevadajudgment notwithstanding the verdict nevadarenewed motion for judgment as a matter of lawdirected verdict nevadamotion for judgment as a matter of law nevada