Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 11 - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.259 (2026)

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 11.259  Effect of compliance with or failure to comply with NRS 11.258.

      1.  The court shall dismiss an action involving nonresidential construction if the attorney for the complainant fails to:

      (a) File an affidavit required pursuant to NRS 11.258;

      (b) File a report required pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 11.258; or

      (c) Name the expert consulted in the affidavit required pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 11.258.

      2.  The fact that an attorney for a complainant has complied or failed to comply with the provisions of NRS 11.256 to 11.259, inclusive, is admissible in the action.

      (Added to NRS by 2007, 648)

MISCELLANEOUS LIMITATIONS

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: Converse Prof'l Grp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 310 P.3d 574 (Nev. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Converse Prof'l Grp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 310 P.3d 574 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 17× “Because “action” for NRS 11.259 purposes could be reasonably read either way, it is ambiguous.”
Reif Vs. Aries Consultants, Inc., 2019 NV 50 (Nev. 2019). · cites it 6× “Because Reifs initial pleading was never served, it should not have been dismissed under NRS 11.259. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A aelr, Fl "i; Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss and remand for further proceedings consistent…”
Otak Nevada, LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 260 P.3d 408 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 3× “Thus, the Legislature’s use of “shall” in NRS 11.259 demonstrates its intent to prohibit judicial discretion and, consequently, mandates automatic dismissal if the pleading is served without the complaining party concurrently filing the required affidavit and report.”
In re CityCenter Constr. & Lien Litig (Nev. 2013). · cites it 16× “Because "action" for NRS 11.259 purposes could be reasonably read either way, it is ambiguous.”
Bagelmania Holdings, LLC v. Rdh Interests, Inc. c/w 87901, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 62 (Nev. 2025). · cites it 3× “258, NRS 11.259 mandates that the district court “shall dismiss” the action.”
State, Dep't of Transp. Vs. Dist. Ct. (jorgenson & Koka, Llp), 2016 NV 10 (Nev. 2016). · cites it 2× “4 NDOTalso argues that NRS 11.259 mandates dismissal with prejudice.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cfa, Inc. (Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “259 require an expert report and attorney affidavit setting forth evidence that there is a reasonable basis for filing the action as a prerequisite to pursuing a negligence theory of liability against a design professional.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cfa, Inc. (Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “259 require an expert report and attorney affidavit setting forth evidence that there is a reasonable basis for filing the action as a prerequisite to pursuing a negligence theory of liability against a design professional.”
Reif Vs. Barker Drottar Assoc.'S, Llc (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “Having considered the parties arguments and the record, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed appellant's complaint under NRS 11.259(1) for failure to comply with NRS 11.”
Kreiser v. VS2R Eng'g, Inc. (D. Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “See NRS § 11.259(1)(a) (providing that the “court shall dismiss an action” under 3 these circumstances when the party fails to attach the required affidavit to their complaint); 4 see also In re CityCenter Constr.”
State, Dep't of Transp. Vs. Dist. Ct. (jorgenson & Koka, Llp), 2016 NV 10 (Nev. 2016). “4 NDOT also argues that NRS 11.259 mandates dismissal with prejudice.”
Kosor, Jr. v. S. Highlands Cmty. Ass'n, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 34 (Nev. 2025). “258 and NRS 11.259); Washoe Med. Ctr. u. Second Jud.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.259(1) — 5 cases
Converse Prof'l Grp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 310 P.3d 574 (Nev. 2013). “Because “action” for NRS 11.259 purposes could be reasonably read either way, it is ambiguous.”
Reif Vs. Aries Consultants, Inc., 2019 NV 50 (Nev. 2019). “Because Reifs initial pleading was never served, it should not have been dismissed under NRS 11.259. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A aelr, Fl "i; Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss and remand for further proceedings consistent…”
Otak Nevada, LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 260 P.3d 408 (Nev. 2011). “Thus, the Legislature’s use of “shall” in NRS 11.259 demonstrates its intent to prohibit judicial discretion and, consequently, mandates automatic dismissal if the pleading is served without the complaining party concurrently filing the required affidavit and report.”
In re CityCenter Constr. & Lien Litig (Nev. 2013). “Because "action" for NRS 11.259 purposes could be reasonably read either way, it is ambiguous.”
Reif Vs. Barker Drottar Assoc.'S, Llc (Nev. 2020). “Having considered the parties arguments and the record, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed appellant's complaint under NRS 11.259(1) for failure to comply with NRS 11.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.259(1)(a) — 1 case
Kreiser v. VS2R Eng'g, Inc. (D. Nev. 2020). “See NRS § 11.259(1)(a) (providing that the “court shall dismiss an action” under 3 these circumstances when the party fails to attach the required affidavit to their complaint); 4 see also In re CityCenter Constr.”
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.