NRS
14.070 Service of process on operator of motor vehicle involved in
crash.
1. The use and operation of a motor
vehicle over the public roads, streets or highways, or in any other area open
to the public and commonly used by motor vehicles, in the State of Nevada by
any person, either as principal, master, agent or servant, shall be deemed an
appointment by the operator, on behalf of the operator and the operator’s
principal, master, executor, administrator or personal representative, of the
Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles to be his or her true and lawful
attorney upon whom may be served all legal process in any action or proceeding
against the operator or the operator’s principal, master, executor,
administrator or personal representative, growing out of such use or resulting
in damage or loss to person or property, and the use or operation signifies his
or her agreement that any process against him or her which is so served has the
same legal force and validity as though served upon him or her personally
within the State of Nevada.
2. Service of process must be made by
leaving a copy of the process with a fee of $5 in the hands of the Director of
the Department of Motor Vehicles or in the office of the Director, and the service
shall be deemed sufficient upon the operator if notice of service and a copy of
the process is sent by registered or certified mail by the plaintiff to the
defendant at the address supplied by the defendant in the defendant’s crash
report, if any, and if not, at the best address available to the plaintiff, and
a return receipt signed by the defendant or a return of the United States
Postal Service stating that the defendant refused to accept delivery or could
not be located, or that the address was insufficient, and the plaintiff’s
affidavit of compliance therewith are attached to the original process and
returned and filed in the action in which it was issued. Personal service of
notice and a copy of the process upon the defendant, wherever found outside of
this state, by any person qualified to serve like process in the State of
Nevada is the equivalent of mailing, and may be proved by the affidavit of the
person making the personal service appended to the original process and
returned and filed in the action in which it was issued.
3. The court in which the action is
pending may order such continuances as may be necessary to afford the defendant
reasonable opportunity to defend the action.
4. The fee of $5 paid by the plaintiff to
the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles at the time of the service
must be taxed in the plaintiff’s costs if the plaintiff prevails in the suit.
The Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles shall keep a record of all
service of process, including the day and hour of service.
5. The foregoing provisions of this
section with reference to the service of process upon an operator defendant are
not exclusive, except if the operator defendant is found within the State of
Nevada, the operator defendant must be served with process in the State of
Nevada.
6. The provisions of this section apply to
nonresident motorists and to resident motorists who have left the State or
cannot be found within the State following a crash which is the subject of an
action for which process is served pursuant to this section.
[1:275:1953; A 1955,
453] + [2:275:1953] + [3:275:1953] + [4:275:1953] + [5:275:1953]—(NRS A 1957,
628; 1961,
155; 1963,
800; 1969,
95, 611;
1981,
1591; 1985,
1971; 2001,
2554; 2015,
1656)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case:
Browning v. Dixon, 954 P.2d 741 (Nev. 1998).
Browning v. Dixon, 954 P.2d 741 (Nev. 1998).
· cites it 12× “OPINION Per Curiam: The principal issue raised in this appeal is whether a plaintiff must use due diligence to locate a defendant before resorting to the substitute service provisions of NRS 14.070(2). We conclude that procedural due process requires such diligence, and we *215…”
Carlson v. Bos, 740 P.2d 1269 (Utah 1987).
· cites it 2× “Nevada's nonresident motor vehicle statute (Nev.Rev.Stat. § 14.070) provides that process may be mailed to the defendant at the address given in his accident report, if any, and, if none is given, then to the best address of the defendant which is available to the plaintiff.”
Abreu v. Gilmer, 985 P.2d 746 (Nev. 1999).
“4 Although Browning involved the due diligence requirement under NRS 14.070(2), our analysis of what constituted due diligence is applicable to disputes arising out of NRCP 4(e)(l)(i).”
Scrimer v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of Nevada, 998 P.2d 1190 (Nev. 2000).
“Petitioners apparently did not make any attempt to serve process during the 120-day period, while settlement negotiations were underway, but served the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) under the substitute service provisions of NRS 14.”
Mitchell v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 418 P.2d 994 (Nev. 1966).
· cites it 4× “: This proceeding in prohibition questions the constitutionality of NRS 14.070. That statute provides a method for giving notice of the service of process to a defendant who operated a motor vehicle on a public road, street or highway in Nevada, and is alleged to have caused…”
Austin v. C & L Trucking, Inc., 610 F. Supp. 465 (D. Nev. 1985).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiffs sought to serve defendants with process pursuant to NRS 14.070, which provides for service on operators, masters and principals of motor vehicles involved in collisions and accidents within the state.”
Selznick v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, Etc., 355 P.2d 854 (Nev. 1960).
· cites it 3× “Service of summons was made on each of the petitioners pursuant to NRS 14.070 which permits constructive service of summons in any action or proceeding growing out of the operation of a motor vehicle over the public roads, streets, or highways in the State of Nevada.”
Thran v. First Jud. Dist. Court, 380 P.2d 297 (Nev. 1963).
“Zimmerman, a resident of Montana, by service upon the director of the Department of Motor Vehicles of Nevada, NRS 14.070(1). On December 23, 1958, this court, on application of H.”
Christy v. Carlisle, 584 P.2d 687 (Nev. 1978).
“Plaintiff’s counsel then caused service of process to be made upon the director of the department of motor vehicles pursuant to NRS 14.070. The summons and complaint was mailed to the defendant Carlisle’s Las Vegas address as it appeared on the accident report.”
Bank of Nevada v. Friedman, 420 P.2d 1 (Nev. 1966).
“There service of process was effected under the nonresident motorist statute, NRS 14.070. At issue was whether the statute of limitations was tolled while the defendant was absent from Nevada.”
Hayashida v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 357 P.2d 117 (Nev. 1960).
· cites it 5× “Pursuant to NRS 14.070 petitioner was served with process by service on the director of the department of motor vehicles.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.070(1) — 4 cases
Thran v. First Jud. Dist. Court, 380 P.2d 297 (Nev. 1963).
“Zimmerman, a resident of Montana, by service upon the director of the Department of Motor Vehicles of Nevada, NRS 14.070(1). On December 23, 1958, this court, on application of H.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.070(2) — 8 cases
Browning v. Dixon, 954 P.2d 741 (Nev. 1998).
“OPINION Per Curiam: The principal issue raised in this appeal is whether a plaintiff must use due diligence to locate a defendant before resorting to the substitute service provisions of NRS 14.070(2). We conclude that procedural due process requires such diligence, and we *215…”
Abreu v. Gilmer, 985 P.2d 746 (Nev. 1999).
“4 Although Browning involved the due diligence requirement under NRS 14.070(2), our analysis of what constituted due diligence is applicable to disputes arising out of NRCP 4(e)(l)(i).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.070(5) — 1 case
Browning v. Dixon, 954 P.2d 741 (Nev. 1998).
“OPINION Per Curiam: The principal issue raised in this appeal is whether a plaintiff must use due diligence to locate a defendant before resorting to the substitute service provisions of NRS 14.070(2). We conclude that procedural due process requires such diligence, and we *215…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.070(6) — 1 case
Browning v. Dixon, 954 P.2d 741 (Nev. 1998).
“OPINION Per Curiam: The principal issue raised in this appeal is whether a plaintiff must use due diligence to locate a defendant before resorting to the substitute service provisions of NRS 14.070(2). We conclude that procedural due process requires such diligence, and we *215…”
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.