USA – NEVADA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Leon F Mead, Mead Law Group
hold all the exhibits. Other judges will only want electronic exhibits to be reviewed and used in the courtroom. Motions in limine Motions in limine in cases handled without a jury should not be used. Although this could depend on the particular judge, many judges deny motions in limine outright when no jury is involved. Some judges will entertain motions in limine for certain issues, such as exclusion of experts or limitation in the scope of expert tes- timony. However, others will not even consider a motion in limine if filed and will deny it as a matter of course. In bench trials, the court is likely to want to consider the weight of the evidence rather than exclude the evidence entirely. This avoids appeals on exclusion when no jury decision is made. Evidentiary rules in bench trials Similarly, with limited exception, judges in bench trials often do not sustain objections to live tes- timony, such as those made upon the basis of hearsay, lack of foundation, speculation, or similar objections. These objections will either be overruled outright or, in some cases, judges may provide the examining attorney with instruc- tions to fix the line of questioning so as to avoid sustaining the objection. General Hearsay Exception As previously mentioned, Nevada procedure and evidence rules largely follow the FRCP and the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, there are some unique differences that are important to understand. By way of example, unlike many other larger jurisdictions, Nevada has a “gen-
eral exception” to the typical hearsay exclusion rules. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 51.075 provides: “A statement is not excluded by the hearsay rule if its nature and the special circumstances under which it was made offer assurances of accuracy not likely to be enhanced by calling the declar- ant as a witness, even though the declarant is available.” Given that this “general exception” to the hear- say exclusionary rules is not widely accepted in other jurisdictions (or the Federal Rules of Evidence), it represents an unexpected trap for the unwary litigant or seasoned out-of-state trial lawyer. It is not something that an out-of-state law firm might think of specifically researching, but it could critically lead to unexpectedly admit- ted evidence that the lawyer might otherwise have expected to be excluded. This again illus- trates the importance of retaining experienced local Nevada counsel ‒ as advised in the opening section ‒ in order to avoid such unique issues. Impact of COVID-19 Administrative Orders Nevada Governor issued administrative orders from the COVID-19 era that impacted Nevada litigation cases. The Nevada Supreme Court issued a decision that any case governed by statutes and regulations was tolled for 122 days (see Dignity Heath v Eighth Judicial Dist Ct, 140 Nev Adv Op 40, 550 P.3d 341 (2024)). However, this limitation does not apply to any deadlines issued by court rule. Such periods are not used for determination of the five-year period in which cases must be brought to trial (see Boren v City of North Las Vegas, 98 Nev 5, 6, 638 P.2d 404, 405 (1982)).
1500 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook