Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 68, Offers of Judgment

(NRCP 68)

Last updated:  February 23, 2008

 

Welcome to my website.  From this website you can find links to source materials and my commentary on the Nevada Supreme Court’s offer of judgment rule, NRCP 68 and JCRCP 68, and you can learn of any recent developments in my effort to get that rule replaced with a clearer and more accessible version. 

 

The views expressed herein are those of the author.  They do not reflect the views of the author’s employer, the Nevada Law Journal, the William S. Boyd School of Law, the State Bar of Nevada, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., the LexisNexis Group, their agents, editors or directors, nor any other person or entity.

 

Every effort has been made to provide the most accurate information available on this subject.  It should not, however, be construed as legal advice.  If legal advice is required, please consult with a professional.  To locate a Nevada licensed attorney, you may call the State Bar of Nevada’s Lawyer Referral and Information Service at 1-800-789-5747. 

 

In September 2007, I asked the State Bar of Nevada’s Board of Governors to add an item to the agenda for their October 9, 2007 meeting in Ely.  Specifically, I asked that they consider filing with the Nevada Supreme Court a petition (with hyperlinks) that I authored and that proposes to replace Rule 68.  Here is an hmtl version of that petition with links to some of the source materials that the petition references. 

 

As of February 23, 2008, the petition has not been filed with the Nevada Supreme Court.  The petition was briefly under the review of a subcommittee of the Board of Governors, but that review was indefinitely suspended once the Supreme Court’s Bench and Bar Committee undertook the task of reviewing Rule 68. 

 

In early February 2008, and following the Supreme Court’s Bench and Bar Committee’s possession of the matter, the Supreme Court established and populated a study committee.  According to the Supreme Court’s Order, that committee shall, “conduct hearings and study the issues and concerns relating to NRCP 68 offers of judgment and, in light of those considerations, recommend to [the Supreme Court] whether NRCP 68 should be amended.”  

                                                                              

* * * *

 

I am the author of an article on offers of judgment that appears in the Nevada Civil Practice Manual, 5th Edition, a publication that is sponsored by the State Bar of Nevada CLE Publications Committee for Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., which is itself a member of the LexisNexis Group.  I update that article every year and it is available for purchase from LexisNexis.  I was invited to author this article by the editors and my authorship is provided on a pro bono basis. This publication can be found in Nevada law libraries and in many public libraries.  Here is a link to that article’s synopsis for the October 2007 release. 

 

I am the author of the article, A Proposal to Clarify Rule 68 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure Regarding Offers of Judgment, 7 Nev. L.J. 382 (2007), which can be found in the better law libraries and can be purchased from the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.  That article is presented with a bill-draft formatting style that is commonly used in the Nevada legislature and in Nevada rulemaking activities.  It contains some formatting errors, which are, I hope, readily discernable to the interested reader.  In my opinion, the one on-line library service that I have consulted has completely failed to replicate this formatting style and so it does not accurately reproduce this author’s intent.

 

Please sponsor the State Bar of Nevada by purchasing ($25) the flowchart that I authored and donated.  This flowchart illustrates the architecture of Rule 68 and NRS §17.115 as they currently exist, with a special emphasis on their operation when there are multiple offerees.  The flowchart graphically illustrates important differences between the two provisions.  If my petition is granted by the Supreme Court, most of the differences will be reconciled and the architecture of Rule 68 and NRS §17.115 will become substantially identical.

 

For those interested in rulemaking in neighboring states, in September 2007 the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order to adopt the State Bar of Arizona’s petition to amend their offer of judgment rule (ARCP 68).  This order was issued approximately three months after the closure of a lengthy public comment period on the State Bar’s petition.

 

Please email any suggestions or comments about any of my articles, the petition, or the flowchart.  Constructive criticisms are always welcome. 

 

Craig R. Roecks