Nev. R. Civ. P. 56
Advisory Committee Note 2019 Amendment Subsection (a). Rule 56(a) retains the word "shall" consistent with the advisory committee notes to the 2010 amendments to FRCP 56 to preserve Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 121 P.3d 1026 (2005), and its progeny.
Subsection (d). Rule 56(d) modernizes the text of former NRCP 56(f) consistent with FRCP 56(d). The changes are stylistic and do not affect Choy v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., 127 Nev. 870, 265 P.3d 698 (2011), which requires an affidavit to justify a request for a continuance of the summary judgment proceeding to conduct further discovery.
Subsection (e). The judicial discretion afforded under new Rule 56(e) ensures fairness in the individual case; it should not excuse inadequate motion practice.
Drafter's Note
2004 Amendment
Subdivision (c) is amended to make clear that motions for summary judgment and responses thereto must identify each material fact that the party claims is or is not genuinely in issue and must cite the relevant portions of any documents or evidence upon which the party relies. The new language is taken from Rule 56-1 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The provision is also amended to require that an order granting summary judgment set forth the undisputed material facts and legal determinations that support the decision to grant summary judgment.