Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.030 (2026)
Application of common law in courts
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 1.030 Application of common law in courts. The
common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or in conflict with the
Constitution and laws of the United States, or the Constitution and laws of
this State, shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this State.
[1911 CPA § 532; RL § 5474; NCL § 9021]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · leading case: Trujillo v. State, 310 P.3d 594 (Nev. 2013).
Trujillo v. State, 310 P.3d 594 (Nev. 2013). “We hold that the common-law writ of coram nobis is available under Article 6, Section 6(1) of the Nevada Constitution, which grants district courts the power to issue writs that are proper and necessary to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction, and NRS 1.030, which…”
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 55 (Nev. 2022). “See NRS 1.030 (“The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or in conflict with the.”
Rupert Ex Rel. Rupert v. Stienne, 528 P.2d 1013 (Nev. 1974). “Although NRS 1.030 provides that “the common law of England so far as it is not repugnant to or in conflict with the Constitution and the laws of the United States or the constitution and laws of this state shall be the rule of decision in all courts of this state,” it does not…”
Dow Chem. Co. v. Mahlum, 970 P.2d 98 (Nev. 1998). “See NRS 1.030 (providing that common law shall be the rule of decision in Nevada courts unless "repugnant to or in conflict with .”
State Eng'r v. Cowles Bros., Inc., 478 P.2d 159 (Nev. 1970). “Our legislature has declared that the common law shall be the rule of decision in the courts of this state unless repugnant to the constitution and laws of this state, NRS 1.030. For the reasons expressed the common-law doctrine of reliction is not repugnant to NRS 537.”
Newman v. State, 298 P.3d 1171 (Nev. 2013). “Nevada has not, so in Nevada the privilege exists by virtue of common law, see NRS 1.030; 3 William Blackstone Commentaries 120 (1862) (“battery is, in some cases, justifiable or lawful; as where one who hath authority, a parent or master, gives moderate correction to his child,…”
State v. Weddell, 43 P.3d 987 (Nev. 2002). “, agree, concurring in part and dissenting in part: The majority opinion holds that the repeal of the fleeing-felon rule does not result in the rule’s continued existence by virtue of NRS 1.030, the statute that mandates the application of the common law where not abrogated by…”
Davenport v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 404 P.2d 10 (Nev. 1965). “NRS 1.030. The appellant argues that the common law rule is violated if the policy provision before us is given effect.”
Tahoe Reg'l Plan. Agency v. McKay, 590 F. Supp. 1071 (D. Nev. 1984). “opinions cited NRS § 1.030, 2 thus emphasizing this statute and the general policy of statutory construction that enactments of the Nevada legislature must be construed in the light of the common law and the history and development of the law.”
Ryan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., in & for Cty. of Clark, 503 P.2d 842 (Nev. 1972). “We have already shown that his power does not encompass the procedure here sought to be utilized. *845 3. "The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or the constitution and laws of this state,…”
Hamm v. Carson City Nugget, Inc., 450 P.2d 358 (Nev. 1969). “NRS 1.030; Davenport v. State Farm Mutual, 81 Nev.”
Nye Cnty. v. Plankinton, 587 P.2d 421 (Nev. 1978). “NRS 1.030. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.”
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.