Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 199 - CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 199.490 (2026)

Overt act not necessary

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 199.490  Overt act not necessary.  In any such proceeding for violation of NRS 199.480, it shall not be necessary to prove that any overt act was done in pursuance of such unlawful conspiracy or combination.

      [1911 C&P § 113; RL § 6378; NCL § 10062]

SOLICITATION

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1981–2019 · leading case: United States v. Luciano Pascacio-Rodriguez, 749 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Luciano Pascacio-Rodriguez, 749 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “Nev.Rev.Stat. § 199.490 (2003). 8 .The signed plea agreement states in pertinent part: “I hereby agree to plead guilty to: one (1) count of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER (Felony-NRS 200.”
United States v. Cornelio-Pena, 435 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2006). “03(5) (stating no overt act requirement for felony of the first or second degree).”
Moore v. State, 27 P.3d 447 (Nev. 2001). “13 See NRS 199.490 (“In any such proceeding for violation of NRS 199.”
Garner v. State, 6 P.3d 1013 (Nev. 2000). “480 (providing various penalties for conspiracy to commit various crimes or acts); NRS 199.490 (providing that it is not necessary to prove any overt act was done in pursuance of a conspiracy).”
United States v. Xochitl Garcia-Santana, 743 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “For reasons we shall explain shortly, we are convinced that, applying the methodology prescribed by the Supreme Court for defining generic offenses for categorical purposes, the generic federal definition of conspiracy, codified at 8 U.”
United States v. Tavares Chandler, 743 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 2014). “” Unlike some states, Nevada does not require an overt act in pursuance of the crime, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 199.490 , so “[t]he gist of the crime of conspiracy is the unlawful agreement or confederation.”
Nunnery v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 186 P.3d 886 (Nev. 2008). “” 12 And NRS 199.490 provides that an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is not required to support a conviction for conspiracy.”
Isbell v. State, 626 P.2d 1274 (Nev. 1981). “2 NRS 199.490 states: “In any such proceeding for violation of NRS 199.”
United States v. Xochitl Garcia-Santana, 774 F.3d 528 (2014). · cites it 3× “For reasons we shall explain shortly, we are convinced that, applying the methodology prescribed by the Supreme Court for defining generic offenses for categorical purposes, the- generic federal definition of conspiracy, codified at 8 U.”
Burnside (timothy) Vs. State (death penalty/direct), 2015 NV 40 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 2× “3d at 888-89 (internal quotation marks omitted); see NRS 199.490 (providing that proof of an overt act is not necessary to show conspiracy).”
Bryant v. United States (D. Nev. 2019). “2008); see also NRS 199.490 (providing that proof of an overt act 6 is not necessary to show conspiracy).”
Burnside (timothy) Vs. State (death penalty/direct), 2015 NV 40 (Nev. 2015). “3d at 888-89 (internal quotation marks omitted); see NRS 199.490 (providing that proof of an overt act is not necessary to show conspiracy).”
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.