Nevada
How Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co. applies in Nevada: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Civil Procedure.
In Nevada, the principles established in Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co. regarding the burden of proof and the treatment of summary judgment apply with regard to local custom and practice. Nevada courts recognize that a plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to preclude the granting of summary judgment if there is a genuine issue of material fact.
In Nevada, under NRCP 56, a party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, paralleling the federal standard.
The court held that summary judgment is inappropriate when a reasonable juror could find in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence presented.
The court recognized that for a motion for summary judgment to succeed, the moving party must negate an essential element of the opposing party's case.
The court emphasized that in deciding a summary judgment motion, all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party.
Nevada's approach to summary judgment closely mirrors the federal standard articulated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Both jurisdictions require the moving party to prove the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
Understanding the application of the summary judgment standard is vital for the Nevada Bar Exam, specifically concerning the burden of proof in civil cases.