Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9302 (2026)
Law governing perfection and priority of agricultural liens
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 104.9302 Law governing perfection and priority of agricultural liens. While farm products are located in a
jurisdiction, the law of that jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of
perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of an agricultural lien on the
farm products.
(Added to NRS by 1999, 301)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1974–1989 · leading case: Home Savings Ass'n v. General Electric Credit Corp.
Home Savings Ass'n v. General Electric Credit Corp. (1985)
“well as Chapter 482, which was applicable to the majority of the earlier purchases, the legislature has specified that compliance with applicable title provisions “is sufficient for the perfection and release” of a security interest in a mobile home “and for exemption from the…”
NEVADA R. & S. CO. v. United States Dept. of Treasury IRS (1974)
“(NRS § 104.9302) to protect its interest against third party creditors (NRS § 104.”
Valley Bank of Nevada v. City of Henderson (1981)
“Section 104.9302(l)(e) was never intended to provide an escape hatch for negligent institutional financiers.”
May v. G.M.B., Inc. (1989)
“431, inclusive, is sufficient for the perfection and release of a security interest in a vehicle and for exemption from the requirement of filing of a financing statement under the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection 3 of NRS 104.9302. In all other respects the rights and…”
Bill Stremmel Motors, Inc. v. First National Bank of Nevada (1978)
“427 results in the perfection of a security interest in the vehicle and exemption from the requirement of filing a financing statement under NRS 104.9302. See NRS 482.432.”
Board of Trustees of the Vacation Trust Carpenters Local No. 1780 v. Durable Developers, Inc. (1986)
“Because the firm had failed to file the financing statement required to perfect a security interest under Article Nine, see NRS 104.9302(1), the district court concluded that the law firm’s interest in the $121,000 was subordinate to that of the Trustees, the lien creditor.”
Kulik v. Albers Incorporated (1975)
“(b) A person who becomes a lien creditor without knowledge of the security interest and before it is perfected.” (Effective My 1, 1975, the “without knowledge” wording is removed.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9302(1) — 1 case
Board of Trustees of the Vacation Trust Carpenters Local No. 1780 v. Durable Developers, Inc. (1986)
“Because the firm had failed to file the financing statement required to perfect a security interest under Article Nine, see NRS 104.9302(1), the district court concluded that the law firm’s interest in the $121,000 was subordinate to that of the Trustees, the lien creditor.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9302(3) — 1 case
May v. G.M.B., Inc. (1989)
“431, inclusive, is sufficient for the perfection and release of a security interest in a vehicle and for exemption from the requirement of filing of a financing statement under the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection 3 of NRS 104.9302. In all other respects the rights and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9302(3)(b) — 1 case
Home Savings Ass'n v. General Electric Credit Corp. (1985)
“well as Chapter 482, which was applicable to the majority of the earlier purchases, the legislature has specified that compliance with applicable title provisions “is sufficient for the perfection and release” of a security interest in a mobile home “and for exemption from the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9302(l)(c) — 1 case
May v. G.M.B., Inc. (1989)
“431, inclusive, is sufficient for the perfection and release of a security interest in a vehicle and for exemption from the requirement of filing of a financing statement under the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection 3 of NRS 104.9302. In all other respects the rights and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9302(l)(e) — 1 case
Valley Bank of Nevada v. City of Henderson (1981)
“Section 104.9302(l)(e) was never intended to provide an escape hatch for negligent institutional financiers.”
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.