Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 2 - SUPREME COURT
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 2.120 (2026)

Adoption of rules for government of courts and State Bar of Nevada; adoption of rules for civil practice and procedure

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 2.120  Adoption of rules for government of courts and State Bar of Nevada; adoption of rules for civil practice and procedure.

      1.  The Supreme Court may make rules not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the State for its own government, the government of the district courts, and the government of the State Bar of Nevada. Such rules shall be published promptly upon adoption and take effect on a date specified by the Supreme Court.

      2.  The Supreme Court, by rules adopted and published from time to time, shall regulate original and appellate civil practice and procedure, including, without limitation, pleadings, motions, writs, notices and forms of process, in judicial proceedings in all courts of the State, for the purpose of simplifying the same and of promoting the speedy determination of litigation upon its merits. Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right and shall not be inconsistent with the Constitution of the State of Nevada. Such rules shall be published promptly upon adoption and take effect on a date specified by the Supreme Court.

      [Part 8:19:1865; A 1913, 274; 1919 RL § 4835; NCL § 8377] + [1:40:1951] + [2:40:1951]—(NRS A 1963, 384; 1967, 112; 2023, 2603)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: A Cab, LLC v. Murray, 2021 NV 84 (Nev. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
A Cab, LLC v. Murray, 2021 NV 84 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 4× “2 (1986) (citing NRS 2.120), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles & Pub.”
Evans v. State, 28 P.3d 498 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 2× “3d 1209, 1215 (2000); NRS 2.120; see also Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6 (limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the district courts to "cases arising in Justices Courts and such other inferior tribunals").”
State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court ex rel. Cnty. of Washoe, 11 P.3d 1209 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 5× “The State also cites NRS 2.120, which provides: 1. The supreme court may make rules not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the state for its own government, the government of the district courts, and the government of the State Bar of Nevada.”
Lyft, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (davis), 2021 NV 86 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 6× “3d 1209, 1215 (2000); see also NRS 2.120(2) (explaining that this court "shall regulate original and appellate civil practice and procedure).”
State v. Dist. Ct., 11 P.3d 1209 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 5× “The State also cites NRS 2.120, which provides: 1. The supreme court may make rules not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the state for its own government, the government of the district courts, and the government of the State Bar of Nevada.”
Millen v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 148 P.3d 694 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “Judge Del Vecchio also requests that we validate the midstream recusal policy in accordance with NRS 2.120. 13 We first address Judge Del Vecchio’s concerns regarding the propriety of using recusal lists in general.”
Nevadans for the Prot. of Prop. Rights, Inc. v. Heller, 141 P.3d 1235 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “120(1), (2) (recognizing that "the supreme court may make rules not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the state for its own government, the government of the district courts, and the government of the State Bar of Nevada" and that "[t]he supreme court, by rules…”
Lindauer v. Allen, 456 P.2d 851 (Nev. 1969). · cites it 4× “The legislature may, by statute, sanction the exercise of inherent powers by the courts, and the courts may acquiesce in such pronouncements by the legislature, but when a statute attempts to limit or destroy an inherent power of the courts, that statute must fail.”
Berkson v. LePome, 245 P.3d 560 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 2× “2d 210, 211 (1988)); see also NRS 2.120(2) (legislative recognition that this court regulates civil practice in order to promote "the speedy determination of litigation upon its merits").”
Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007). “56 Relevant to this matter, we previously recognized two statutes as codifying the judiciary’s inherent rulemaking powers: NRS 2.120(1), which provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Supreme Court may make rules not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the State for…”
State v. Connery, 661 P.2d 1298 (Nev. 1983). · cites it 2× “Thus, we must determine whether the rule or the statute is to control.”
Zamora v. Price, 213 P.3d 490 (Nev. 2009). “2d 1298, 1300 (1983) (noting that the judiciary has inherent power to govern its own procedures, but that any such rules may not “ ‘abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right’ ” (quoting NRS 2.120)). We note that the enactment of such substantive evidentiary rules is well…”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 2.120(1) — 9 cases
Nevadans for the Prot. of Prop. Rights, Inc. v. Heller, 141 P.3d 1235 (Nev. 2006). “120(1), (2) (recognizing that "the supreme court may make rules not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the state for its own government, the government of the district courts, and the government of the State Bar of Nevada" and that "[t]he supreme court, by rules…”
Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007). “56 Relevant to this matter, we previously recognized two statutes as codifying the judiciary’s inherent rulemaking powers: NRS 2.120(1), which provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Supreme Court may make rules not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the State for…”
State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court ex rel. Cnty. of Washoe, 11 P.3d 1209 (Nev. 2000). “The State also cites NRS 2.120, which provides: 1. The supreme court may make rules not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the state for its own government, the government of the district courts, and the government of the State Bar of Nevada.”
Goldberg v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 572 P.2d 521 (Nev. 1977).
State v. Dist. Ct., 11 P.3d 1209 (Nev. 2000). “The State also cites NRS 2.120, which provides: 1. The supreme court may make rules not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the state for its own government, the government of the district courts, and the government of the State Bar of Nevada.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 2.120(2) — 10 cases
Lyft, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (davis), 2021 NV 86 (Nev. 2021). “3d 1209, 1215 (2000); see also NRS 2.120(2) (explaining that this court "shall regulate original and appellate civil practice and procedure).”
Berkson v. LePome, 245 P.3d 560 (Nev. 2010). “2d 210, 211 (1988)); see also NRS 2.120(2) (legislative recognition that this court regulates civil practice in order to promote "the speedy determination of litigation upon its merits").”
Beazer Homes Holding Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 291 P.3d 128 (Nev. 2012).
State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court ex rel. Cnty. of Washoe, 11 P.3d 1209 (Nev. 2000). “The State also cites NRS 2.120, which provides: 1. The supreme court may make rules not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the state for its own government, the government of the district courts, and the government of the State Bar of Nevada.”
State v. Dist. Ct., 11 P.3d 1209 (Nev. 2000). “The State also cites NRS 2.120, which provides: 1. The supreme court may make rules not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the state for its own government, the government of the district courts, and the government of the State Bar of Nevada.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.