Nev. Rev. Stat. § 13.050

Cases in which venue may be changed

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 13.050  Cases in which venue may be changed.

      1.  If the county designated for that purpose in the complaint, petition or motion is not the proper county, the proceeding may, notwithstanding, be tried or heard therein, unless:

      (a) After the filing of a complaint or petition, the defendant demands in writing, before the time for answering expires, that the trial be had in the proper county, and the place of trial be thereupon changed by consent of the parties, or by order of the court, as provided in this section.

      (b) In a proceeding in which the court has continuing jurisdiction after the issuance of a final order, judgment or decree, including, without limitation, any proceeding for divorce, annulment, separate maintenance or parentage or custody of a child and where no party currently resides in the county in which the order, judgment or decree was entered, the respondent demands in writing, before the time for filing a response expires, that the petition or motion be heard in the county of residence of either party to the proceeding or in the county where the child who is the subject of the proceeding resides, or by order of the court, as provided in this section.

      2.  The court may, on motion or stipulation, change the place of the proceeding in the following cases:

      (a) When the county designated in the complaint, petition or motion is not the proper county.

      (b) When there is reason to believe that an impartial proceeding cannot be had therein.

      (c) When the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.

      (d) When any defendant in a case commenced in a county without a business court requests a change to a county:

             (1) With a business court; and

             (2) In which the case, if originally commenced in such county, would be eligible for assignment to the business court.

      (e) When each of the parties consent to the change.

      3.  When the place of the proceeding is changed, all other matters relating to the proceeding shall be had in the county to which the place of the proceeding is changed, unless otherwise provided by the consent of the parties in writing duly filed, or by order of the court, and the papers shall be filed or transferred accordingly.

      4.  As used in this section, “business court” means, as designated pursuant to the rules of the applicable district court:

      (a) A business court docket;

      (b) A business matter designation; or

      (c) At least one business court judge.

      [1911 CPA § 73; RL § 5015; NCL § 8572]—(NRS A 2013, 1289; 2017, 253)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1961–2023 · leading case: In Re Nevada State Engr. Ruling No. 5823
In Re Nevada State Engr. Ruling No. 5823 (2012) nev · cites it 5× “Compare NRS 13.050 (providing for change of venue in proceedings not brought in "the proper county") with NRS 533.”
Churchill County v. State Engineer (2012) nev · cites it 5× “Compare NRS 13.050 (providing for change of venue in proceedings not brought in “the proper county”) with NRS 533.”
Burnett v. New York Central Railroad (1965) scotus · cites it 2× “Codes 1947, § 93-2906; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 13.050 ; N. H. Rev. Stat.”
Sicor, Inc. v. Sacks (2011) nev · cites it 3× “When a change of venue motion is based on adverse pretrial publicity, the district court’s discretion under NRS 13.050(2) to change venue includes the authority to conduct a more probing *898 evaluation of the prospective jury panel before the district court decides whether…”
Mountain View Recreation, Inc. v. Imperial Commercial Cooking Equipment Co. (2013) nev · cites it 2× “Forum non conveniens The doctrine of forum non conveniens is statutorily embodied in NRS 13.050. See Cariaga v. Eighth Judicial Dist.”
Nevada Transit Co. v. Harris Brothers Lumber Co. (1964) nev · cites it 5× “*467 NRS 13.050 provides in part: “1. If the county designated for that purpose in the complaint be not the proper county, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried therein, unless the defendant before the time for answering expires demand in writing that the trial be had in the…”
Roethlisberger v. McNulty (2011) nev · cites it 9× “040, based on residence, and NRS 13.050, based on convenience. When his motion was denied, he filed this appeal, arguing that none of the defendants reside in the county where the action is to be tried and that because the alleged events occurred in a different county, venue…”
First Financial Trust Co. v. Scott (1996) nm “§ 25-410 (1995); Nev. Rev.Stat. § 13.050(2)(e) (1995); N.H.”
Western Pacific Railroad v. Krom (1986) nev · cites it 2× “However, under NRS 13.050(1) and (2)(a), when the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county, then, upon motion by a defendant, the change of place of trial is *43 mandatory and not within the discretion of the court to which the motion is addressed.”
Miller v. Ashurst (1970) nev · cites it 3× “NRS 13.050 requires the trial judge to find factually that an order changing venue would promote the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice.”
Cariaga v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (1988) nev “See NRS 13.050(2)(c). For the reasons set forth above, we deny Cariaga’s petition for extraordinary relief.”
Grey v. Grey (1995) nev “Thus, her demand for a change of venue was due July 27, 1994. The problem in this case is that Roxanne claims to have mailed the venue documents sufficiently far in advance such that they should have been received by the clerk’s office in a timely fashion, yet they were not…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 13.050(1) — 10 cases
In Re Nevada State Engr. Ruling No. 5823 (2012) nev “Compare NRS 13.050 (providing for change of venue in proceedings not brought in "the proper county") with NRS 533.”
Churchill County v. State Engineer (2012) nev “Compare NRS 13.050 (providing for change of venue in proceedings not brought in “the proper county”) with NRS 533.”
Western Pacific Railroad v. Krom (1986) nev “However, under NRS 13.050(1) and (2)(a), when the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county, then, upon motion by a defendant, the change of place of trial is *43 mandatory and not within the discretion of the court to which the motion is addressed.”
Grey v. Grey (1995) nev “Thus, her demand for a change of venue was due July 27, 1994. The problem in this case is that Roxanne claims to have mailed the venue documents sufficiently far in advance such that they should have been received by the clerk’s office in a timely fashion, yet they were not…”
Randono v. Ballow (1984) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 13.050(1)(a) — 3 cases
In re Estate of Sweet (2022) nevapp
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 13.050(2) — 6 cases
Sicor, Inc. v. Sacks (2011) nev “When a change of venue motion is based on adverse pretrial publicity, the district court’s discretion under NRS 13.050(2) to change venue includes the authority to conduct a more probing *898 evaluation of the prospective jury panel before the district court decides whether…”
Roethlisberger v. McNulty (2011) nev “040, based on residence, and NRS 13.050, based on convenience. When his motion was denied, he filed this appeal, arguing that none of the defendants reside in the county where the action is to be tried and that because the alleged events occurred in a different county, venue…”
Miller v. Ashurst (1970) nev “NRS 13.050 requires the trial judge to find factually that an order changing venue would promote the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice.”
Western Pacific Railroad v. Krom (1986) nev “However, under NRS 13.050(1) and (2)(a), when the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county, then, upon motion by a defendant, the change of place of trial is *43 mandatory and not within the discretion of the court to which the motion is addressed.”
Pearce v. Boberg (1971) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 13.050(2)(a) — 3 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 13.050(2)(b) — 3 cases
Sicor, Inc. v. Sacks (2011) nev “When a change of venue motion is based on adverse pretrial publicity, the district court’s discretion under NRS 13.050(2) to change venue includes the authority to conduct a more probing *898 evaluation of the prospective jury panel before the district court decides whether…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 13.050(2)(b)(c) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 13.050(2)(c) — 10 cases
Mountain View Recreation, Inc. v. Imperial Commercial Cooking Equipment Co. (2013) nev “Forum non conveniens The doctrine of forum non conveniens is statutorily embodied in NRS 13.050. See Cariaga v. Eighth Judicial Dist.”
Cariaga v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (1988) nev “See NRS 13.050(2)(c). For the reasons set forth above, we deny Cariaga’s petition for extraordinary relief.”
Roethlisberger v. McNulty (2011) nev “040, based on residence, and NRS 13.050, based on convenience. When his motion was denied, he filed this appeal, arguing that none of the defendants reside in the county where the action is to be tried and that because the alleged events occurred in a different county, venue…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 13.050(2)(e) — 1 case
First Financial Trust Co. v. Scott (1996) nm “§ 25-410 (1995); Nev. Rev.Stat. § 13.050(2)(e) (1995); N.H.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 13.050(3) — 3 cases
In Re Nevada State Engr. Ruling No. 5823 (2012) nev “Compare NRS 13.050 (providing for change of venue in proceedings not brought in "the proper county") with NRS 533.”
Churchill County v. State Engineer (2012) nev “Compare NRS 13.050 (providing for change of venue in proceedings not brought in “the proper county”) with NRS 533.”
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.