Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 177 - APPEALS AND REMEDIES AFTER CONVICTION
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 177.025 (2026)

Appeal to court of appeals or Supreme Court taken on questions of law alone

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 177.025  Appeal to court of appeals or Supreme Court taken on questions of law alone.  The appeal to the appellate court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the rules fixed by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 4 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution from the district court can be taken on questions of law alone.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1444; A 2013, 1759)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1968–2014 · leading case: Canape v. State, 859 P.2d 1023 (Nev. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Canape v. State, 859 P.2d 1023 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 4× “We turn now to a consideration of whether our review of mitigating and aggravating circumstances under Clemons requires us to make impermissible findings of fact under Article 6, Section 4 of the Nevada Constitution [15] and NRS 177.”
McConnell v. State, 102 P.3d 606 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 2× “[9] See NRS 177.025 ("The appeal to the Supreme Court from the district court can be taken on questions of law alone.”
Leslie v. Warden, 59 P.3d 440 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 2× “" [28] NRS 177.025 reiterates this limit on our jurisdiction.”
State v. Webster, 726 P.2d 831 (Nev. 1986). · cites it 2× “Finally, the most compelling reason for my dissent in this case is the fact that, in spite of well established rules to the contrary, the majority has reversed a factual finding of the district court.”
State v. Shade, 900 P.2d 327 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 2× “Shade also argues that the State waived its right to appeal by not opposing his oral motion to dismiss in district court.”
Azbill v. State, 495 P.2d 1064 (Nev. 1972). “In all criminal proceedings the weight and sufficiency of the evidence are questions for the jury, and its verdict wifi not be disturbed upon appeal if there is evidence to support it.”
Crowe v. State, 441 P.2d 90 (Nev. 1968). “See NRS 177.025. As authority he urges a collection of cases from the Illinois jurisdiction, which we note are principally intermediate appellate court decisions.”
State v. Wilson, 760 P.2d 129 (Nev. 1988). “VI § 4 and NRS 177.025 and accomplishes the ends of justice without circumventing the limitations placed upon the district courts through NRS 175.”
Vidal (Francisco) v. State (Nev. 2014). “" Contrary to appellant's assertion, NRS 177.025 does not govern this court's jurisdiction to consider an appeal; rather, that statute prohibits this court from making findings of fact on appeal.”
Burkhart v. State, 820 P.2d 757 (Nev. 1991). “6, § 4; NRS 177.025. Viewing the evidence as we must, it is clear that the jury could — and did — reasonably infer that Burkhart intended to detain the victim against his will.”
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.