Group VII: Judgment · Last amended March 1, 2019 · Last verified July 14, 2026
Advisory Committee Note — 2019 Amendment: This new rule is modeled on FRCP 62.1 and works in conjunction with new NRAP 12A. Like its federal counterpart, Rule 62.1 does not attempt to define the circumstances in which a pending appeal limits or defeats the district court’s authority to act. See FRCP 62.1 advisory committee’s note (2009 amendment). Rather, these rules provide the procedure to follow when a party seeks relief in the district court from an order or judgment that the district court has lost jurisdiction over due to a pending appeal of the order or judgment, consistent with Huneycutt v. Huneycutt, 94 Nev. 79, 575 P.2d 585 (1978), and its progeny.
Added eff. 3-1-19.
Once an appeal is docketed, the trial court loses authority over the parts of the case now in the appellate court's hands. But that doesn't always stop a party from wanting the trial court's input on a pending motion — one asking, say, for relief from the judgment or some other order the trial court would otherwise be free to grant. Rule 62.1 gives the trial court a structured way to respond without overstepping its authority. Faced with such a motion, the court can defer ruling until the appeal is resolved, deny the motion outright, or issue what amounts to a preview: a statement that it would grant the motion if the case were remanded for that purpose, or that the motion at least raises a substantial issue worth the appellate court's attention.
If the trial court goes that route, the moving party has to act quickly and let the clerk of the supreme court know, so the appellate court can decide whether to send the matter back down. If it does remand, the trial court can then rule on the motion it had only been able to preview before. This mechanism keeps the trial court from being either powerless or presumptuous while an appeal is in progress — it can flag what it would do without pretending it still has full authority over a case the appellate court now controls.
Once an appeal is docketed, the trial court generally loses jurisdiction over the aspects of the case now before the appellate court. Ruling on a motion that would alter the judgment or order under appeal could conflict with the appellate court's authority, so Rule 62.1 offers an intermediate path instead of an outright decision.
It can defer considering the motion until the appeal ends, deny the motion, or state that it would grant the motion (or that the motion raises a substantial issue) if the appellate court remands the case for that purpose.
The party who filed the motion must promptly notify the clerk of the supreme court, consistent with the appellate rule governing this situation. The appellate court then decides whether to remand the case so the trial court can rule.
No. Rule 62.1 doesn't attempt to define when a pending appeal limits the trial court's authority to act. It provides the procedure to follow once a party wants relief that the appeal may have taken out of the trial court's hands.
Motions the trial court would otherwise decide on the merits but can't because the underlying order or judgment is on appeal — for example, a motion for relief from the judgment or another motion asking the court to revisit something the appeal has already put before the appellate court.