Go Syfert

Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.500 (2026)

Recommencement of actions dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 11.500 Recommencement of actions dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as otherwise provided in this section, if an action that is commenced within the applicable period of limitations is dismissed because the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, the action may be recommenced in the court having jurisdiction within:

(a) The applicable period of limitations; or

(b) Ninety days after the action is dismissed,

Ê whichever is later.

2. An action may be recommenced only one time pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 1.

3. An action may not be recommenced pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 1 more than 5 years after the date on which the original action was commenced.

4. Paragraph (b) of subsection 1 does not apply to a contract that is subject to the provisions of chapters 104 to 104C, inclusive, of NRS.

(Added to NRS by 2003, 2134; A 2005, 247)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 2010–2020 · leading case: Wheble v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 272 P.3d 134 (Nev. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wheble v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 272 P.3d 134 (Nev. 2012). · cites it 13× “OPINION Per Curiam: In this petition for extraordinary writ relief, we must determine whether the district court can apply NRS 11.500, Nevada’s “savings statute,” to save otherwise time-barred medical malpractice claims that have been previously dismissed for failure to comply…”

Berkson v. LePome, 245 P.3d 560 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 6× “340 is its companion statute, NRS 11.500, which the Legislature enacted in 2003 to provide for an additional 90 days to refile a suit dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction, even at the district court level.”

Archon Corp. Vs. Dist. Ct. (haberkorn), 2017 NV 101 (Nev. 2017). · cites it 18× “At oral argument on the motion to dismiss, Archon argued for the first time that NRS 11.500, reprinted infra note 1, supported dismissal.”

Archon Corp. Vs. Dist. Ct. (haberkorn), 2017 NV 101 (Nev. 2017). · cites it 9× “At oral argument on the motion to dismiss, Archon argued for the first time that NRS 11.500, reprinted infra note 1, supported dismissal.”

Baxter Vs. Dignity Health, 2015 NV 76 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 2× “071 affidavit was so far incomplete that "the dismissed action was never 'commenced' for purposes of NRS 11.500, which tolls the statute of limitations when an action is dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Centennial Gateway, Llc Vs. Home Consignment Ctr. C/W 78492/79018 (Nev. 2020). “Nor are we persuaded by Centennial's argument that NRS 11.500 warrants relief when Centennial filed the second action in the same district court as it filed the first action.”

Centennial Gateway, Llc Vs. Home Consignment Ctr. C/W 78492/79018 (Nev. 2020). “Nor are we persuaded by Centennial's argument that NRS 11.500 warrants relief when Centennial filed the second action in the same district court as it filed the first action.”

Centennial Gateway, Llc Vs. Home Consignment Ctr. C/W 78492/79018 (Nev. 2020). “Nor are we persuaded by Centennial's argument that NRS 11.500 warrants relief when Centennial filed the second action in the same district court as it filed the first action.”

Woods v. Kings Row Trailer Park (Nev. 2015). “Woods voluntarily dismissed the suit that he filed in the federal district court; NRS 11.500 allows a party to recommence an action in a court having jurisdiction only where a different court dismissed 'Although Woods did not allege publication in lawyerly terms, his allegations…”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.500(1) — 1 case

Wheble v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 272 P.3d 134 (Nev. 2012). “OPINION Per Curiam: In this petition for extraordinary writ relief, we must determine whether the district court can apply NRS 11.500, Nevada’s “savings statute,” to save otherwise time-barred medical malpractice claims that have been previously dismissed for failure to comply…”

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.