Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 171 - PROCEEDINGS TO COMMITMENT
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.206 (2026)

Procedure following preliminary examination

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 171.206  Procedure following preliminary examination.  If from the evidence it appears to the magistrate that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant has committed it, the magistrate shall forthwith hold the defendant to answer in the district court; otherwise the magistrate shall discharge the defendant. The magistrate shall admit the defendant to bail as provided in this title. After concluding the proceeding the magistrate shall transmit forthwith to the clerk of the district court all papers in the proceeding and any bail.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1407)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 83 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2024 · leading case: Sheriff v. Witzenburg, 145 P.3d 1002 (Nev. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sheriff v. Witzenburg, 145 P.3d 1002 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 4× “[7] NRS 171.206. [8] Id. [9] Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.”
Hobbs v. State, 251 P.3d 177 (Nev. 2011). “In particular, at sentencing, the record is devoid of any mention of the prior misdemeanor convictions, either by the district com! or the State.”
Parsons v. State, 10 P.3d 836 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 2× “The justice’s court’s role at a preliminary examination is to make an eviden-tiary evaluation of whether there is “probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant has committed it.”
Gary v. Sheriff, 605 P.2d 212 (Nev. 1980). “NRS 171.206. The difference in finality between the denial and granting of habeas relief supplies a reasonable basis precluding review in the one instance and allowing it in the other.”
Parsons v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Court, 885 P.2d 1316 (Nev. 1994). · cites it 2× “See NRS 171.206. Moreover, as the district court noted in granting the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari, the justice court had no authority to sua sponte amend a felony complaint to a misdemeanor.”
State v. Sargent, 128 P.3d 1052 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “NRS 171.206. Identification is at issue because the description given by the witness does not match Sargent or his vehicle.”
McDonald v. Sheriff of Carson City, 512 P.2d 774 (Nev. 1973). · cites it 2× “NRS 171.206; cf. Maskaly v. Sheriff, 85 Nev.”
Goldsmith v. Sheriff of Lyon Cnty., 454 P.2d 86 (Nev. 1969). · cites it 2× “206, 1 which became effective January 1, 1968, somewhat relaxed the degree of responsibility placed upon a magistrate, for now the defendant shall be held to answer only if from the evidence it appears to the magistrate that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has…”
State v. Barren, 279 P.3d 182 (Nev. 2012). “NRS 171.206; see also Woemer v. Justice Court, 116 Nev.”
Thedford v. Sheriff, Clark Cnty., 476 P.2d 25 (Nev. 1970). · cites it 2× “He further testified that the puncture marks in the cervix were not normal in the pregnant uterus.”
Maes v. Sheriff, 582 P.2d 793 (Nev. 1978). · cites it 2× “And since the definition of “sexual penetration” as used in NRS 200.364(2), supra, is in the disjunctive, including fellatio, the State has met its burden of proving probable cause that a crime has been committed.”
State of Nevada v. Just. Court, 919 P.2d 401 (Nev. 1996). “NRS 171.206. If the justice court finds probable cause, the court must order the defendant bound over for trial in the district court.”
Show all 83 citing 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.