NRS
11.190 Periods of limitation. Except
as otherwise provided in
NRS 40.4639,
125B.050 and
217.007, actions other than those for the
recovery of real property, unless further limited by specific statute, may only
be commenced as follows:
1. Within 6 years:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in NRS 62B.420 and 176.275, an action upon a judgment or
decree of any court of the United States, or of any state or territory within
the United States, or the renewal thereof.
(b) An action upon a contract, obligation or
liability founded upon an instrument in writing, except those mentioned in the
preceding sections of this chapter.
2. Within 4 years:
(a) An action on an open account for goods, wares
and merchandise sold and delivered.
(b) An action for any article charged on an
account in a store.
(c) An action upon a contract, obligation or
liability not founded upon an instrument in writing.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in NRS 11.245, an action against a person
alleged to have committed a deceptive trade practice in violation of NRS 598.0903 to 598.0999, inclusive, but the cause of
action shall be deemed to accrue when the aggrieved party discovers, or by the
exercise of due diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the
deceptive trade practice.
3. Within 3 years:
(a) An action upon a liability created by
statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture.
(b) An action for waste or trespass of real
property, but when the waste or trespass is committed by means of underground
works upon any mining claim, the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue upon
the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the waste or
trespass.
(c) An action for taking, detaining or injuring
personal property, including actions for specific recovery thereof, but in all
cases where the subject of the action is a domestic animal usually included in
the term “livestock,” which has a recorded mark or brand upon it at the time of
its loss, and which strays or is stolen from the true owner without the owner’s
fault, the statute does not begin to run against an action for the recovery of
the animal until the owner has actual knowledge of such facts as would put a
reasonable person upon inquiry as to the possession thereof by the defendant.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in NRS 112.230 and 166.170, an action for relief on the ground
of fraud or mistake, but the cause of action in such a case shall be deemed to
accrue upon the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the
fraud or mistake.
(e) An action pursuant to NRS 40.750 for damages sustained by a
financial institution or other lender because of its reliance on certain
fraudulent conduct of a borrower, but the cause of action in such a case shall
be deemed to accrue upon the discovery by the financial institution or other
lender of the facts constituting the concealment or false statement.
(f) An action pursuant to NRS 41.1335, but the cause of action shall
be deemed to accrue upon the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts
constituting fertility fraud or of any medical or genetic disorder which
results from the human reproductive material implanted in, used on or provided
to a patient in violation of NRS 200.975,
whichever occurs later.
4. Within 2 years:
(a) An action against a sheriff, coroner or
constable upon liability incurred by acting in his or her official capacity and
in virtue of his or her office, or by the omission of an official duty,
including the nonpayment of money collected upon an execution.
(b) An action upon a statute for a penalty or
forfeiture, where the action is given to a person or the State, or both, except
when the statute imposing it prescribes a different limitation.
(c) An action for libel, slander, assault,
battery, false imprisonment or seduction.
(d) An action against a sheriff or other officer
for the escape of a prisoner arrested or imprisoned on civil process.
(e) Except as otherwise provided in NRS 11.215 or 11.217, an action to recover damages for
injuries to a person or for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or
neglect of another. The provisions of this paragraph relating to an action to
recover damages for injuries to a person apply only to causes of action which
accrue after March 20, 1951.
(f) An action to recover damages under NRS 41.740.
(g) Except as otherwise provided in NRS 165.1214, absent fraud or intentional
misrepresentation, an action to recover for breach of fiduciary duty against a
fiduciary, as defined in NRS 163.554,
who resides in this State or a trust company as described in chapter 669 or 669A
of NRS that has its principal place of business in this State. The cause of
action shall be deemed to accrue when the aggrieved party discovers or should
have discovered through the use of reasonable diligence the material facts that
constitute the cause of action, whichever occurs earlier.
5. Within 1 year:
(a) An action against an officer, or officer de
facto to recover goods, wares, merchandise or other property seized by the
officer in his or her official capacity, as tax collector, or to recover the
price or value of goods, wares, merchandise or other personal property so
seized, or for damages for the seizure, detention or sale of, or injury to,
goods, wares, merchandise or other personal property seized, or for damages
done to any person or property in making the seizure.
(b) An action against an officer, or officer de
facto for money paid to the officer under protest, or seized by the officer in
his or her official capacity, as a collector of taxes, and which, it is
claimed, ought to be refunded.
[1911 CPA § 25; A 1951,
247]—(NRS A 1965,
948, 1415;
1967,
113; 1981,
1023, 1885;
1983,
612; 1985,
698; 1987,
14, 1346;
1991,
117; 1993,
454, 2628;
1997,
1591; 1999,
1238; 2005,
1424; 2007,
742, 2472,
2848;
2011,
1745; 2013,
1027; 2015,
2576; 2017,
4354; 2021,
1353, 1453;
2023,
582, 1413;
2025,
2317)
Notes of Decisions
FAUSTO VS. SANCHEZ-FLORES (2021)
nev · cites it 40×
“Spinney, we recognized that the doctrine of equitable tolling could pertain to the deadline for enforcing judgments under NRS 11.190(1). 110 Nev. 496, 501, 874 P.2d 754, 757 (1994).”
Stalk v. Mushkin (2009)
nev · cites it 24×
“In response, Mushkin maintains that the district court properly applied NRS 11.”
Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Restaurant (2006)
nev · cites it 7×
“26 One such procedural law, NRS 11.190, provides that an action on “a statute for a penalty or forfeiture” must be commenced within two years.”
ADKINS v. UNION PAC. R.R. CO. (2024)
nev · cites it 26×
“190(3)(b) provides a three-year limitations period for claims alleging waste or trespass of real property, "but when the waste or trespass is committed by means of underground works upon any mining claim, the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue upon the discovery by the…”
Torrealba v. Kesmetis (2008)
nev · cites it 14×
“150(2) are claims upon a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture, and are subject to a three-year statute of limitations under NRS 11.190(3)(a). Because the Torrealbas’ negligence per se claim is based upon NRS 240.”
WILSON v. LAS VEGAS METRO. POLICE DEP'T (2021)
nev · cites it 16×
“The district court did not err in dismissing Wilson's complaint NRS 11.190(4) provides a two-year limitations period for an action for battery or false imprisonment, or for "an action to recover damages for injuries to a person .”
Petersen v. Bruen (1990)
nev · cites it 8×
“NRS 11.190(4) (e) expressly declares that civil actions must be commenced within two years “for injuries to a person .”
Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2012)
ca8 · cites it 6×
“Specifically, Ridenour asserts in his brief that violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act are governed by a four-year limitations period under Nev.Rev.Stat. § 11.190(2)(d); that UCC express and implied warranty claims are governed by a four-year limitations period…”
Siragusa v. Brown (1998)
nev · cites it 6×
“2d 569 , (1971) (stating that the term "action" in NRS 11.190 "refers to the nature or subject matter and not to what the pleader says it is").”
Leven v. Frey (2007)
nev · cites it 3×
“26 See NRS 11.190 (limitation of actions); NRAP 4(a)(1) (time and location for filing a notice of appeal).”
O'LANE v. Spinney (1994)
nev · cites it 10×
“DISCUSSION NRS 11.190 gives judgment creditors six years within which to enforce their judgments.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(1) — 13 cases
FAUSTO VS. SANCHEZ-FLORES (2021)
nev
“Spinney, we recognized that the doctrine of equitable tolling could pertain to the deadline for enforcing judgments under NRS 11.190(1). 110 Nev. 496, 501, 874 P.2d 754, 757 (1994).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(1)(a) — 19 cases
Leven v. Frey (2007)
nev
“26 See NRS 11.190 (limitation of actions); NRAP 4(a)(1) (time and location for filing a notice of appeal).”
ADKINS v. UNION PAC. R.R. CO. (2024)
nev
“190(3)(b) provides a three-year limitations period for claims alleging waste or trespass of real property, "but when the waste or trespass is committed by means of underground works upon any mining claim, the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue upon the discovery by the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(1)(b) — 45 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(1Xa) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(2) — 5 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(2)(a) — 3 cases
ADKINS v. UNION PAC. R.R. CO. (2024)
nev
“190(3)(b) provides a three-year limitations period for claims alleging waste or trespass of real property, "but when the waste or trespass is committed by means of underground works upon any mining claim, the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue upon the discovery by the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(2)(b) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(2)(c) — 30 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(2)(d) — 9 cases
Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2012)
ca8
“Specifically, Ridenour asserts in his brief that violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act are governed by a four-year limitations period under Nev.Rev.Stat. § 11.190(2)(d); that UCC express and implied warranty claims are governed by a four-year limitations period…”
ADKINS v. UNION PAC. R.R. CO. (2024)
nev
“190(3)(b) provides a three-year limitations period for claims alleging waste or trespass of real property, "but when the waste or trespass is committed by means of underground works upon any mining claim, the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue upon the discovery by the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(3) — 32 cases
Siragusa v. Brown (1998)
nev
“2d 569 , (1971) (stating that the term "action" in NRS 11.190 "refers to the nature or subject matter and not to what the pleader says it is").”
Stalk v. Mushkin (2009)
nev
“In response, Mushkin maintains that the district court properly applied NRS 11.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(3)(a) — 61 cases
Torrealba v. Kesmetis (2008)
nev
“150(2) are claims upon a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture, and are subject to a three-year statute of limitations under NRS 11.190(3)(a). Because the Torrealbas’ negligence per se claim is based upon NRS 240.”
Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2012)
ca8
“Specifically, Ridenour asserts in his brief that violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act are governed by a four-year limitations period under Nev.Rev.Stat. § 11.190(2)(d); that UCC express and implied warranty claims are governed by a four-year limitations period…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(3)(b) — 2 cases
ADKINS v. UNION PAC. R.R. CO. (2024)
nev
“190(3)(b) provides a three-year limitations period for claims alleging waste or trespass of real property, "but when the waste or trespass is committed by means of underground works upon any mining claim, the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue upon the discovery by the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(3)(c) — 18 cases
Stalk v. Mushkin (2009)
nev
“In response, Mushkin maintains that the district court properly applied NRS 11.”
ADKINS v. UNION PAC. R.R. CO. (2024)
nev
“190(3)(b) provides a three-year limitations period for claims alleging waste or trespass of real property, "but when the waste or trespass is committed by means of underground works upon any mining claim, the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue upon the discovery by the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(3)(d) — 44 cases
Stalk v. Mushkin (2009)
nev
“In response, Mushkin maintains that the district court properly applied NRS 11.”
Torrealba v. Kesmetis (2008)
nev
“150(2) are claims upon a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture, and are subject to a three-year statute of limitations under NRS 11.190(3)(a). Because the Torrealbas’ negligence per se claim is based upon NRS 240.”
Siragusa v. Brown (1998)
nev
“2d 569 , (1971) (stating that the term "action" in NRS 11.190 "refers to the nature or subject matter and not to what the pleader says it is").”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(3Xd) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(4) — 12 cases
WILSON v. LAS VEGAS METRO. POLICE DEP'T (2021)
nev
“The district court did not err in dismissing Wilson's complaint NRS 11.190(4) provides a two-year limitations period for an action for battery or false imprisonment, or for "an action to recover damages for injuries to a person .”
Petersen v. Bruen (1990)
nev
“NRS 11.190(4) (e) expressly declares that civil actions must be commenced within two years “for injuries to a person .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(4)(2) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(4)(b) — 6 cases
Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Restaurant (2006)
nev
“26 One such procedural law, NRS 11.190, provides that an action on “a statute for a penalty or forfeiture” must be commenced within two years.”
Torrealba v. Kesmetis (2008)
nev
“150(2) are claims upon a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture, and are subject to a three-year statute of limitations under NRS 11.190(3)(a). Because the Torrealbas’ negligence per se claim is based upon NRS 240.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(4)(c) — 22 cases
WILSON v. LAS VEGAS METRO. POLICE DEP'T (2021)
nev
“The district court did not err in dismissing Wilson's complaint NRS 11.190(4) provides a two-year limitations period for an action for battery or false imprisonment, or for "an action to recover damages for injuries to a person .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(4)(e) — 112 cases
FAUSTO VS. SANCHEZ-FLORES (2021)
nev
“Spinney, we recognized that the doctrine of equitable tolling could pertain to the deadline for enforcing judgments under NRS 11.190(1). 110 Nev. 496, 501, 874 P.2d 754, 757 (1994).”
Stalk v. Mushkin (2009)
nev
“In response, Mushkin maintains that the district court properly applied NRS 11.”
Petersen v. Bruen (1990)
nev
“NRS 11.190(4) (e) expressly declares that civil actions must be commenced within two years “for injuries to a person .”
ADKINS v. UNION PAC. R.R. CO. (2024)
nev
“190(3)(b) provides a three-year limitations period for claims alleging waste or trespass of real property, "but when the waste or trespass is committed by means of underground works upon any mining claim, the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue upon the discovery by the…”
Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2012)
ca8
“Specifically, Ridenour asserts in his brief that violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act are governed by a four-year limitations period under Nev.Rev.Stat. § 11.190(2)(d); that UCC express and implied warranty claims are governed by a four-year limitations period…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(4Xe) — 1 case
FAUSTO VS. SANCHEZ-FLORES (2021)
nev
“Spinney, we recognized that the doctrine of equitable tolling could pertain to the deadline for enforcing judgments under NRS 11.190(1). 110 Nev. 496, 501, 874 P.2d 754, 757 (1994).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(5) — 3 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(5)(a) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(5)(b) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(5)(c) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(a)(3) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(b) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(b)(1) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(e) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(l)(a) — 5 cases
O'LANE v. Spinney (1994)
nev
“DISCUSSION NRS 11.190 gives judgment creditors six years within which to enforce their judgments.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(l)(b) — 13 cases
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.