Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 178 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 178.3975 (2026)

Order for payment by defendant; remission of payment; disposition of amounts recovered; community service

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 178.3975  Order for payment by defendant; remission of payment; disposition of amounts recovered; community service.  Repealed. (See chapter 163, Statutes of Nevada 2025, at page 1021.)

 

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1995–2014 · leading case: Truesdell v. State, 304 P.3d 396 (Nev. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Truesdell v. State, 304 P.3d 396 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 3× “2d 805, 809 (1995) (noting that NRS 178.3975 provides adequate safeguards to prevent an indigent defendant from being required to pay for his defense), overruled on other grounds by Gama v.”
Taylor v. State, 903 P.2d 805 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 8× “Specifically, NRS 178.3975 provides that 2. The court shall not order a defendant to make [a reimbursement of attorney fees] unless the defendant is or will be able to do so.”
Brown (Tony) v. State (Nev. 2013). “4, 2013) (citing NRS 178.3975(1)). Even where a district court does not make specific findings when ordering a defendant to pay the Indigent Defense Fund, a defendant must demonstrate how the payment affects his or her substantial rights.”
Krieger (Matthew) v. State (Nev. 2014). “Third, Krieger contends that (1) the district court's order that he pay $5,000 in attorney's fees violates his right to equal protection, (2) NRS 178.3975 is unconstitutionally vague, and (3) the $5,000 attorney fee demand was excessive and constituted an impermissible fine…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 178.3975(1) — 2 cases
Truesdell v. State, 304 P.3d 396 (Nev. 2013). “2d 805, 809 (1995) (noting that NRS 178.3975 provides adequate safeguards to prevent an indigent defendant from being required to pay for his defense), overruled on other grounds by Gama v.”
Brown (Tony) v. State (Nev. 2013). “4, 2013) (citing NRS 178.3975(1)). Even where a district court does not make specific findings when ordering a defendant to pay the Indigent Defense Fund, a defendant must demonstrate how the payment affects his or her substantial rights.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 178.3975(3) — 1 case
Truesdell v. State, 304 P.3d 396 (Nev. 2013). “2d 805, 809 (1995) (noting that NRS 178.3975 provides adequate safeguards to prevent an indigent defendant from being required to pay for his defense), overruled on other grounds by Gama v.”
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.