Group VII: Judgment · Last amended March 1, 2019 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 59 lists the specific grounds a Nevada court may rely on to order a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment, and it locks in a strict 28-day deadline for asking, one that cannot be extended.
(1)Grounds for New Trial. The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues— and to any party—for any of the following causes or grounds materially affecting the substantial rights of the moving party:
(A)irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury, master, or adverse party or in any order of the court or master, or any abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial;
(B)misconduct of the jury or prevailing party;
(C)accident or surprise that ordinary prudence could not have guarded against;
(D)newly discovered evidence material for the party making the motion that the party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial;
(E)manifest disregard by the jury of the instructions of the court;
(F)excessive damages appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice; or
(G)error in law occurring at the trial and objected to by the party making the motion.
(2)Further Action After a Nonjury Trial. On a motion for a new trial in an action tried without a jury, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new findings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgment.
(b)Time to File a Motion for a New Trial. A motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after service of written notice of entry of judgment.
(c)Time to Serve Affidavits. When a motion for a new trial is based on affidavits, they must be filed with the motion. The opposing party has 14 days after being served to file opposing affidavits. The court may permit reply affidavits.
(d)New Trial on the Court’s Initiative or for Reasons Not in the Motion. No later than 28 days after service of written notice of entry of judgment, the court, on its own, may issue an order to show cause why a new trial should not be granted for any reason that would justify granting one on a party’s motion. After giving the parties notice and the opportunity to be heard, the court may grant a party’s timely motion for a new trial for a reason not stated in the motion. In either event, the court must specify the reasons in its order.
(e)Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after service of written notice of entry of judgment.
(f)No Extensions of Time. The 28-day time periods specified in this rule cannot be extended under Rule 6(b).
Notes
Drafter’s Note, Amendment Effective January 1, 2005: The amendment to subdivision (a) is technical. Unlike the federal rule, the Nevada rule lists specific grounds for a new trial. Those grounds are retained in the revised rule. Subdivision (b) is amended to provide that a motion for new trial must be filed, not just served, within the specified time period. The time for filing the motion runs from service of notice of entry rather than from entry of the judgment under the federal rule. A similar amendment to subdivision (c) requires that opposing affidavits be filed, not just served, within the specified time period. Subdivision (d) is added. It conforms to the existing federal rule and permits the court to grant a new trial on its own initiative or for grounds not stated in a timely motion. Subdivision (e) is amended to provide that a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed, not just served, within the specified time period. The time for filing the motion runs from service of notice of entry rather than from entry of the judgment under the federal rule.
Advisory Committee Note — 2019 Amendment: Subsection (a). Rule 59(a) is restyled but retains the Nevada-specific provisions respecting bases for granting a new trial. Subsections (b), (d), and (e). The amendments adopt the federal 28-day deadlines in Rules 59(b) and (e) and incorporate the provisions respecting court-initiated new trials from FRCP 59(d) into NRCP 59(d).
A motion for a new trial is not a free-floating do-over; it has to rest on one of the grounds the rule spells out. Those include irregularities in how the court, jury, or opposing party conducted the proceedings, misconduct by the jury or the winning party, an accident or surprise a careful lawyer could not have guarded against, evidence that surfaces too late to have been used at trial despite reasonable diligence, a jury verdict that plainly disregards the court's instructions, damages that appear driven by passion or prejudice rather than the evidence, or a legal error at trial that the losing party objected to at the time. When the trial was to the court rather than a jury, the judge has another option beyond starting over: reopening the judgment, hearing more testimony, and issuing amended or new findings and a new judgment based on them.
Everything in this rule runs on a tight clock. A motion for a new trial, and separately a motion to alter or amend the judgment, must each be filed no later than 28 days after service of written notice that judgment was entered — not from the entry itself, which is why Rule 58's notice requirement matters here. When a motion rests on affidavits, they have to be filed along with the motion, the opposing side gets 14 days after service to file its own affidavits, and the court may allow reply affidavits after that. The judge is not limited to what the parties raise: within that same 28-day window, the court can issue an order to show cause why a new trial should not be granted on grounds nobody argued, and after giving the parties notice and a chance to be heard, can grant a timely motion for reasons the motion itself never mentioned, so long as the order explains why. What none of this allows is more time. The 28-day periods in this rule cannot be extended, whether by agreement, court order, or anything else.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are valid grounds for asking for a new trial?
The rule lists them specifically: procedural irregularities or an abuse of discretion that prevented a fair trial, misconduct by the jury or the prevailing party, an accident or surprise ordinary care could not have prevented, newly discovered evidence that reasonable diligence could not have turned up in time for trial, a jury verdict that disregards the court's instructions, damages that appear driven by passion or prejudice, or a legal error objected to at trial.
How long do I have to file a motion for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment?
Both motions must be filed no later than 28 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment.
Can the 28-day deadline be extended?
No. The rule expressly states that these time periods cannot be extended, and that includes the extension mechanism otherwise available under Rule 6(b).
Can a judge order a new trial without a motion from either party?
Yes, within limits. The court can issue an order to show cause on its own within the same 28-day period, and it can grant a timely motion for reasons the motion did not raise, but only after giving the parties notice and a chance to be heard, and only while specifying its reasons.
Is a motion for a new trial handled differently after a bench trial than after a jury trial?
Yes. After a trial without a jury, the court has the added option of reopening the existing judgment, taking additional testimony, and amending or making new findings of fact and conclusions of law before entering a new judgment, rather than ordering a full retrial.
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:motion for new trial nevadamotion to alter or amend judgment28 day deadline new trialnewly discovered evidence motionexcessive damages new trial motion