Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 48 - ADMISSIBILITY GENERALLY
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.059 (2026)

Habit; routine practice

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 48.059  Habit; routine practice.

      1.  Evidence of the habit of a person or the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.

      2.  Habit or routine practice may be proved by testimony in the form of an opinion or by specific instances of conduct sufficient in number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice was routine.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 781; A 1973, 25)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2021 · leading case: Thomas v. Hardwick, 231 P.3d 1111 (Nev. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thomas v. Hardwick, 231 P.3d 1111 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 16× “[7] Like many courts, "[w]e are cautious in permitting the admission of habit or pattern-of-conduct *1117 evidence under [NRS 48.059 or its federal analogue] Rule 406 because it necessarily engenders the very real possibility that such evidence will be used to establish a…”
Burchett v. Commonwealth, 98 S.W.3d 492 (Ky. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 27-406; Nevada: Nev.Rev.Stat. § 48.059; New Hampshire: N.”
Folsom v. Woodburn, Wedge, Blakey & Jeppson, Chartered, 683 P.2d 9 (Nev. 1984). “NRS 48.059. The general rule is that a single instance is not sufficient to prove routine practice.”
In Re: Reinstatement of Jeffrey Dickerson (Nev. 2017). · cites it 2× “See NRS 48.059(1) ("Evidence of the habit of a person .”
Richardson (Thomas) Vs. State (Death Penalty-Pc), 481 P.3d 233 (Nev. 2021). “Evidence of a person's habit may be relevant to prove he acted in conformity therewith, NRS 48.059(1), but only with a foundation establishing "that specific, recurring stimuli have produced the same specific response often and invariably enough to qualify as habit or routine,"…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.059(1) — 3 cases
Thomas v. Hardwick, 231 P.3d 1111 (Nev. 2010). “[7] Like many courts, "[w]e are cautious in permitting the admission of habit or pattern-of-conduct *1117 evidence under [NRS 48.059 or its federal analogue] Rule 406 because it necessarily engenders the very real possibility that such evidence will be used to establish a…”
In Re: Reinstatement of Jeffrey Dickerson (Nev. 2017). “See NRS 48.059(1) ("Evidence of the habit of a person .”
Richardson (Thomas) Vs. State (Death Penalty-Pc), 481 P.3d 233 (Nev. 2021). “Evidence of a person's habit may be relevant to prove he acted in conformity therewith, NRS 48.059(1), but only with a foundation establishing "that specific, recurring stimuli have produced the same specific response often and invariably enough to qualify as habit or routine,"…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.059(2) — 2 cases
Thomas v. Hardwick, 231 P.3d 1111 (Nev. 2010). “[7] Like many courts, "[w]e are cautious in permitting the admission of habit or pattern-of-conduct *1117 evidence under [NRS 48.059 or its federal analogue] Rule 406 because it necessarily engenders the very real possibility that such evidence will be used to establish a…”
In Re: Reinstatement of Jeffrey Dickerson (Nev. 2017). “See NRS 48.059(1) ("Evidence of the habit of a person .”
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.