NRS
1.235 Procedure for disqualifying judges other than Supreme Court
justices or judges of the Court of Appeals.
1. Any party to an action or proceeding
pending in any court other than the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, who
seeks to disqualify a judge for actual or implied bias or prejudice must file
an affidavit specifying the facts upon which the disqualification is sought.
The affidavit must contain a statement that the affidavit is filed in good
faith and is not:
(a) Interposed for delay;
(b) Intended to harass a judge; or
(c) Filed for the purpose of:
(1) Unnecessarily increasing the costs of
litigation; or
(2) Attempting to prevent prosecution.
2. Except as otherwise provided in
subsections 3 and 4, the affidavit must be filed:
(a) Not less than 20 days before the date set for
trial or hearing of the case; or
(b) Not less than 3 days before the date set for
the hearing of any pretrial matter.
3. Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection and subsection 4, if a case is not assigned to a judge before the
time required under subsection 2 for filing the affidavit, the affidavit must
be filed:
(a) Within 10 days after the party or the party’s
attorney is notified that the case has been assigned to a judge;
(b) Before the hearing of any pretrial matter; or
(c) Before the jury is empaneled, evidence taken
or any ruling made in the trial or hearing,
Ê whichever
occurs first. If the facts upon which disqualification of the judge is sought
are not known to the party before the party is notified of the assignment of
the judge or before any pretrial hearing is held, the affidavit may be filed
not later than the commencement of the trial or hearing of the case.
4. If a case is reassigned to a new judge
and the time for filing the affidavit under subsection 2 and paragraph (a) of
subsection 3 has expired, the parties have 10 days after notice of the new
assignment within which to file the affidavit, and the trial or hearing of the
case must be rescheduled for a date after the expiration of the 10-day period
unless the parties stipulate to an earlier date.
5. At the time the affidavit is filed, a
copy must be served upon the judge sought to be disqualified. Service must be
made by delivering the copy to the judge personally or by leaving it at the
judge’s chambers with some person of suitable age and discretion employed
therein.
6. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 7, the judge against whom an affidavit alleging bias or prejudice is
filed shall proceed no further with the matter and shall:
(a) If the judge is a district judge, immediately
transfer the case to another department of the court, if there is more than one
department of the court in the district, or request the judge of another
district court to preside at the trial or hearing of the matter;
(b) If the judge is a justice of the peace, immediately
arrange for another justice of the peace to preside at the trial or hearing of
the matter as provided pursuant to NRS 4.032,
4.340 or 4.345, as applicable; or
(c) If the judge is a municipal judge,
immediately arrange for another municipal judge to preside at the trial or
hearing of the matter as provided pursuant to NRS
5.023 or 5.024, as applicable.
7. A judge may challenge an affidavit
alleging bias or prejudice by filing a written answer with the clerk of the
court within 5 judicial days after the affidavit is served, admitting or
denying any or all of the allegations contained in the affidavit and setting
forth any additional facts which bear on the question of the judge’s
disqualification. The question of the judge’s disqualification must thereupon
be heard and determined by a judge appointed:
(a) If the judge is a district judge, by the
presiding judge of the judicial district in judicial districts having more than
one judge, or if the presiding judge of the judicial district is sought to be
disqualified, by the judge having the greatest number of years of service;
(b) If the judge is a justice of the peace, by
the presiding judge of the justice court in justice courts having more than one
justice of the peace, or if the presiding judge is sought to be disqualified,
by the justice of the peace having the greatest number of years of service;
(c) If the judge is a municipal judge, by the
presiding judge of the municipal court in municipal courts having more than one
municipal judge, or if the presiding judge is sought to be disqualified, by the
municipal judge having the greatest number of years of service; or
(d) If there is no presiding judge, by the
Supreme Court.
(Added to NRS by 1977,
767; A 1979,
59, 393;
1981,
319, 872;
2011,
9; 2013,
1711; 2017,
272; 2023,
2596)
Notes of Decisions
Towbin Dodge, LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 112 P.3d 1063 (Nev. 2005).
· cites it 13× “NRS 1.235 sets forth the procedure for disqualifying district judges and requires that an affidavit be filed at least twenty days before trial or at least three days before any contested pretrial matter is heard.”
Valladares v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 910 P.2d 256 (Nev. 1996).
· cites it 17× “230, NRS 1.235, and Canon 3E of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, alleging Steinheimer had an actual or apparent bias against his attorney, Lew Carnahan.”
Scialabba v. Brandise Constr. Co., 921 P.2d 928 (Nev. 1996).
· cites it 4× “[2] NRS 1.235 sets forth the procedure for disqualifying judges other than supreme court justices.”
Lioce v. Cohen, 174 P.3d 970 (Nev. 2008).
· cites it 2× “We conclude that this argument is without merit, and we also direct Lioce to NRS 1.235(1), which states that a party desiring to disqualify a judge in district court "must file an affidavit specifying the facts upon which the disqualification is sought.”
Libby v. State, 859 P.2d 1050 (Nev. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Libby now argues that Judge Sullivan erred in refusing to follow the statutory provisions set forth in NRS 1.235. NRS 1.230(1) provides that "[a] judge shall not act as such in an action or proceeding when he entertains actual bias or prejudice for or against one of the parties…”
Ainsworth v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 774 P.2d 1003 (Nev. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Compare NRS 1.235 (requiring the filing of supporting affidavits in motions seeking disqualification of district judges).”
Ybarra v. State, 247 P.3d 269 (Nev. 2011).
“Judge Dobrescu disclosed below that when he was an attorney in private practice, he represented Griffith’s sister in an adoption proceeding in 1996 and prepared wills for Griffith’s parents in 1998.”
Jacobson v. Manfredi by Manfredi, 679 P.2d 251 (Nev. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Twelve days before trial, Rotometals filed its motion for recusation pursuant to NRS 1.235. Respondents Justin and Brenda Manfredi thereupon filed a motion to strike on grounds that the motion was untimely.”
Hymon v. State, 111 P.3d 1092 (Nev. 2005).
“Nevertheless, we conclude that the district court’s error is harmless because Hymon’s remedy upon being informed of the communication would have been to move to disqualify the district court judge, pursuant to NRS 1.235. Hymon did not do so upon learning of the communication,…”
Matter of Dunleavy, 769 P.2d 1271 (Nev. 1989).
“Second, Dunleavy alleges that because Justice Young provided neither him, nor Judge Beko, an opportunity to address the alleged insufficiency of the sheriff’s petition, the administrative order was entered in violation of the procedures set forth in NRS 1.235(5)(b). As noted…”
Bautista v. Picone, 419 P.3d 157 (Nev. 2018).
“Bautista also seeks to disqualify the district court judge for bias, stating that the judge's bias is evidenced by his denial of Bautista's motions to modify custody, NRS 1.235(1) provides that a party seeking to disqualify a judge for bias "must file an affidavit specifying the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.235(1) — 28 cases
Lioce v. Cohen, 174 P.3d 970 (Nev. 2008).
“We conclude that this argument is without merit, and we also direct Lioce to NRS 1.235(1), which states that a party desiring to disqualify a judge in district court "must file an affidavit specifying the facts upon which the disqualification is sought.”
Towbin Dodge, LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 112 P.3d 1063 (Nev. 2005).
“NRS 1.235 sets forth the procedure for disqualifying district judges and requires that an affidavit be filed at least twenty days before trial or at least three days before any contested pretrial matter is heard.”
Valladares v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 910 P.2d 256 (Nev. 1996).
“230, NRS 1.235, and Canon 3E of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, alleging Steinheimer had an actual or apparent bias against his attorney, Lew Carnahan.”
Libby v. State, 859 P.2d 1050 (Nev. 1993).
“Libby now argues that Judge Sullivan erred in refusing to follow the statutory provisions set forth in NRS 1.235. NRS 1.230(1) provides that "[a] judge shall not act as such in an action or proceeding when he entertains actual bias or prejudice for or against one of the parties…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.235(2) — 1 case
Valladares v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 910 P.2d 256 (Nev. 1996).
“230, NRS 1.235, and Canon 3E of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, alleging Steinheimer had an actual or apparent bias against his attorney, Lew Carnahan.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.235(5) — 3 cases
Ybarra v. State, 247 P.3d 269 (Nev. 2011).
“Judge Dobrescu disclosed below that when he was an attorney in private practice, he represented Griffith’s sister in an adoption proceeding in 1996 and prepared wills for Griffith’s parents in 1998.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.235(5)(a) — 3 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.235(5)(b) — 4 cases
Matter of Dunleavy, 769 P.2d 1271 (Nev. 1989).
“Second, Dunleavy alleges that because Justice Young provided neither him, nor Judge Beko, an opportunity to address the alleged insufficiency of the sheriff’s petition, the administrative order was entered in violation of the procedures set forth in NRS 1.235(5)(b). As noted…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.235(l)(a) — 1 case
Valladares v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 910 P.2d 256 (Nev. 1996).
“230, NRS 1.235, and Canon 3E of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, alleging Steinheimer had an actual or apparent bias against his attorney, Lew Carnahan.”
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.