NRS
179.1164 Property subject to seizure and forfeiture; exceptions.
1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 2, the following property is subject to seizure and forfeiture in a
proceeding for forfeiture:
(a) Any proceeds attributable to the commission
or attempted commission of any felony.
(b) Any property or proceeds otherwise subject to
forfeiture pursuant to NRS 179.121, 200.760, 202.257,
370.419, 453.301 or 501.3857.
2. Property may not, to the extent of the
interest of any claimant, be declared forfeited by reason of an act or omission
shown to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge, consent or
willful blindness of the claimant.
3. Unless the owner of real property or a
mobile home:
(a) Has given the tenant notice to surrender the
premises pursuant to NRS 40.254 within
90 days after the owner receives notice of a conviction pursuant to subsection
2 of NRS 453.305; or
(b) Shows the court that the owner had good cause
not to evict the tenant summarily pursuant to NRS
40.254,
Ê the owner of
real property or a mobile home used or intended for use by a tenant to
facilitate any violation of the provisions of NRS
453.011 to 453.552, inclusive,
except NRS 453.336, is disputably
presumed to have known of and consented to that use if the notices required by NRS 453.305 have been given in connection
with another such violation relating to the property or mobile home. The holder
of a lien or encumbrance on the property or mobile home is disputably presumed
to have acquired an interest in the property for fair value and without
knowledge or consent to such use, regardless of when the act giving rise to the
forfeiture occurred.
(Added to NRS by 1987,
1380; A 1989,
1235; 1991,
209, 2286,
2288;
1995,
2534; 2001,
1066; 2003,
562; 2005,
1198)
Notes of Decisions
Levingston v. Washoe Cnty., 916 P.2d 163 (Nev. 1996).
“NRS 179.1164(2). Also, NRS chapter 179 ties forfeiture actions directly to illegal drug activity.”
Wright v. State, 916 P.2d 146 (Nev. 1996).
“However, “[pjroperty may not, to the extent of the interest of any claimant, be declared forfeited by reason of an act or omission *401 shown to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge, consent or willful blindness of the claimant.”
Fergason Vs. Lv Metro Police Dept., 2015 NV 94 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 10× “080, "proceeds attributable to" these charges could not be a predicate for forfeiture under NRS 179.1164 because that statute requires connection to a felony.”
Fergason Vs. Lv Metro Police Dept., 2015 NV 94 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 5× “080, "proceeds attributable to" these charges could not be a predicate for forfeiture under NRS 179.1164 because that statute requires connection to a felony.”
Monroe v. Lv Metro Police Dept. (Nev. 2016).
· cites it 2× “480, and thus, that charge could not be a predicate for forfeiture under NRS 179.1164 because that statute requires connection to a felony.”
Holmes, III v. Lv Metro Police Dept. (Nev. 2016).
· cites it 2× “continued not be a predicate for forfeiture under NRS 179.1164 because that statute requires connection to a felony.”
Ferguson v. Baker (D. Nev. 2021).
· cites it 2× “” NRS § 179.1164(1)(a). 1 There is no evidence Ferguson was charged with or suspected of a felony.”
Monroe v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't (Nev. 2018).
“3d 592 , 595, 600 (2015) (citing NRS 179.1164(1)(a) and NRS 179.1161). Because appellant failed to produce such evidence, the district court properly granted summary judgment' LVMPD.”
Monroe v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 415 P.3d 1002 (Nev. 2018).
“3d 592 , 595, 600 (2015) (citing NRS 179.1164(1)(a) and NRS 179.1161 ). Because appellant failed to produce such evidence, the district court properly granted summary judgment for LVMPD.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.1164(1) — 2 cases
Fergason Vs. Lv Metro Police Dept., 2015 NV 94 (Nev. 2015).
“080, "proceeds attributable to" these charges could not be a predicate for forfeiture under NRS 179.1164 because that statute requires connection to a felony.”
Fergason Vs. Lv Metro Police Dept., 2015 NV 94 (Nev. 2015).
“080, "proceeds attributable to" these charges could not be a predicate for forfeiture under NRS 179.1164 because that statute requires connection to a felony.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.1164(1)(a) — 7 cases
Fergason Vs. Lv Metro Police Dept., 2015 NV 94 (Nev. 2015).
“080, "proceeds attributable to" these charges could not be a predicate for forfeiture under NRS 179.1164 because that statute requires connection to a felony.”
Ferguson v. Baker (D. Nev. 2021).
“” NRS § 179.1164(1)(a). 1 There is no evidence Ferguson was charged with or suspected of a felony.”
Fergason Vs. Lv Metro Police Dept., 2015 NV 94 (Nev. 2015).
“080, "proceeds attributable to" these charges could not be a predicate for forfeiture under NRS 179.1164 because that statute requires connection to a felony.”
Monroe v. Lv Metro Police Dept. (Nev. 2016).
“480, and thus, that charge could not be a predicate for forfeiture under NRS 179.1164 because that statute requires connection to a felony.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.1164(2) — 2 cases
Levingston v. Washoe Cnty., 916 P.2d 163 (Nev. 1996).
“NRS 179.1164(2). Also, NRS chapter 179 ties forfeiture actions directly to illegal drug activity.”
Wright v. State, 916 P.2d 146 (Nev. 1996).
“However, “[pjroperty may not, to the extent of the interest of any claimant, be declared forfeited by reason of an act or omission *401 shown to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge, consent or willful blindness of the claimant.”
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.