Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 179 - SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS OF A CRIMINAL NATURE; SEALING RECORDS OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS; REWARDS; FORMS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.1173 (2026)

Proceedings for forfeiture: Priority over other civil matters; order to stay; standard of proof; conviction of claimant not required; confidentiality of informants; return of property to claimant; forfeiture as part of plea or stipulated agreement

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 179.1173  Proceedings for forfeiture: Priority over other civil matters; order to stay; standard of proof; conviction of claimant not required; confidentiality of informants; return of property to claimant; forfeiture as part of plea or stipulated agreement.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, the district court shall proceed as soon as practicable to a trial and determination of the matter. A proceeding for forfeiture is entitled to priority over other civil actions which are not otherwise entitled to priority.

      2.  At a proceeding for forfeiture, the court shall issue an order staying the proceeding that remains in effect while the criminal action which is the basis of the proceeding is pending trial. The court shall lift the stay after the trial is completed. If the claimant is acquitted during the trial, the property of the claimant must be returned to the claimant within 7 business days after the acquittal.

      3.  If property has been seized and the criminal charges against the owner of such property are denied or dismissed, all such property must be returned to the owner within 7 business days after the criminal charges are denied or dismissed.

      4.  The plaintiff in a proceeding for forfeiture must establish proof by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture.

      5.  In a proceeding for forfeiture, the rule of law that forfeitures are not favored does not apply.

      6.  The plaintiff is not required to plead or prove that a claimant has been charged with or convicted of any criminal offense. If proof of such a conviction is made, and it is shown that the judgment of conviction has become final, the proof is, as against any claimant, conclusive evidence of all facts necessary to sustain the conviction.

      7.  The plaintiff has an absolute privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of any person, other than a witness, who has furnished to a law enforcement officer information purporting to reveal the commission of a crime. The privilege may be claimed by an appropriate representative of the plaintiff.

      8.  If the court determines that the property is not subject to forfeiture, the court shall order the property and any interest accrued pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS 179.1175 returned to the claimant found to be entitled to the property within 7 business days after the order is issued. If the court determines that the property is subject to forfeiture, the court shall so decree. The property, including any interest accrued pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS 179.1175, must be forfeited to the plaintiff, subject to the right of any claimant who establishes a protected interest. Any such claimant must, upon the sale or retention of the property, be compensated for the claimant’s interest in the manner provided in NRS 179.118.

      9.  A claimant who agrees to enter a plea of guilty, guilty but mentally ill or nolo contendere to criminal charges relating to the seized property or reaches a stipulated agreement with the plaintiff may agree to the forfeiture of any property as part of the plea or agreement.

      10.  If the court accepts a plea or stipulated agreement pursuant to subsection 9, the court shall order forfeiture of the property that the claimant agreed to forfeit pursuant to the plea or agreement.

      (Added to NRS by 1987, 1382; A 2001, 874; 2015, 2502)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2015–2016 · leading case: Fergason Vs. Lv Metro Police Dept., 2015 NV 94 (Nev. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fergason Vs. Lv Metro Police Dept., 2015 NV 94 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 12× “As amended in 2001, NRS 179.1173(4) now requires the State to "establish proof by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture," see 2001 Nev.”
Fergason Vs. Lv Metro Police Dept., 2015 NV 94 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 6× “As amended in 2001, NRS 179.1173(4) now requires the State to "establish proof by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture," see 2001 Nev.”
Monroe v. Lv Metro Police Dept. (Nev. 2016). “While appellant's judgment of conviction can be used to establish that a felony was committed, NRS 179.1173(5) (2001), here it "We conclude that the district court had jurisdiction to enter the summary judgment order despite appellant's then pending appeal from an order denying…”
Holmes, III v. Lv Metro Police Dept. (Nev. 2016). “While appellant's judgment of conviction can be used to establish that a felony was committed, NRS 179.1173(5) (2001), here it cannot be used to establish that the funds seized were attributable to the felony.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.1173(4): 2 cases
Fergason Vs. Lv Metro Police Dept., 2015 NV 94 (Nev. 2015). “As amended in 2001, NRS 179.1173(4) now requires the State to "establish proof by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture," see 2001 Nev.”
Fergason Vs. Lv Metro Police Dept., 2015 NV 94 (Nev. 2015). “As amended in 2001, NRS 179.1173(4) now requires the State to "establish proof by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture," see 2001 Nev.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.1173(5): 2 cases
Monroe v. Lv Metro Police Dept. (Nev. 2016). “While appellant's judgment of conviction can be used to establish that a felony was committed, NRS 179.1173(5) (2001), here it "We conclude that the district court had jurisdiction to enter the summary judgment order despite appellant's then pending appeal from an order denying…”
Holmes, III v. Lv Metro Police Dept. (Nev. 2016). “While appellant's judgment of conviction can be used to establish that a felony was committed, NRS 179.1173(5) (2001), here it cannot be used to establish that the funds seized were attributable to the felony.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.1173(6): 2 cases
Fergason Vs. Lv Metro Police Dept., 2015 NV 94 (Nev. 2015). “As amended in 2001, NRS 179.1173(4) now requires the State to "establish proof by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture," see 2001 Nev.”
Fergason Vs. Lv Metro Police Dept., 2015 NV 94 (Nev. 2015). “As amended in 2001, NRS 179.1173(4) now requires the State to "establish proof by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture," see 2001 Nev.”
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.