Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 2 - SUPREME COURT
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 2.090 (2026)

Jurisdiction to review on appeal

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 2.090  Jurisdiction to review on appeal.  The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review upon appeal:

      1.  A judgment in an action or proceeding, commenced in a district court, when the matter in dispute is embraced in the general jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to review upon appeal from such judgment any intermediate order or decision involving the merits and necessarily affecting the judgment and, in a criminal action, any order changing or refusing to change the place of trial of the action or proceeding.

      2.  An order granting or refusing a new trial in such cases; an order in a civil action changing or refusing to change the place of trial of the action or proceeding after motion is made therefor in the cases in which that court has appellate jurisdiction; and from an order granting or refusing to grant an injunction or mandamus in the case provided for by law.

      [6:19:1865; B § 915; BH § 2430; C § 2513; RL § 4833; NCL § 8375]—(NRS A 1981, 1706)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: City of North Las Vegas v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 147 P.3d 1109 (Nev. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of North Las Vegas v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 147 P.3d 1109 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 16× “First, is writ relief unavailable because an adequate legal remedy exists by means of an immediate appeal from the interlocutory order granting mandamus relief under NRS 2.090? Second, was Davis’s appeal barred because she did not meet NRS 278.”
Mazzan v. State, 863 P.2d 1035 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 7× “Appellant first relies on NRAP 3A(b)(2) and NRS 2.090 to support his contention that the challenged order is the “functional equivalent” of an order refusing to change the place of trial of a civil action.”
Ashokan v. State, Dep't of Ins., 856 P.2d 244 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 2× “NRS 2.090(2) provides that this court “has jurisdiction to review upon appeal .”
Ybarra v. State, 679 P.2d 797 (Nev. 1984). “2 NRS 2.090(2) and 2.110, as they read in 1980, required a defendant to appeal a denial of his motion for change of venue after voir dire but before continuation of trial.”
Chittenden v. Just. Ct. of Pahrump Twp., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 5 (Nev. 2024). · cites it 2× “Therefore, both NRS 2.090(2) and NRS 177.015(3) confer upon this court appellate jurisdiction over the district court's order denying Chittenden's petition for a writ of mandamus.”
O'Donnell v. Perry, 683 P.2d 12 (Nev. 1984). · cites it 2× “” See NRAP 3A(b)(2); NRS 2.090. Appellants have provided no authorities indicating that an order denying a motion to transfer a case from a district court to a justice’s court constitutes an order refusing to change the “place” of trial, and we are aware of none.”
Ash Springs Dev. Corp. v. Crunk, 589 P.2d 1023 (Nev. 1979). “NRAP 3A(b)(2), see also NRS 2.090, 2.110.”
Bish (Travis) v. Just. Ct. For Sparks Twp. (Nev. 2022). · cites it 3× “And contrary to the State's argument regarding the meaning of "provided for by law" in NRS 2.090(2), this court has already determined that the language refers to the finality of the decision in the mandamus proceeding.”
City Of Henderson v. Dist. Ct. (Cullen) (Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “638, 'We note that the City could have appealed the district court's order granting mandamus relief, see NRS 2.090(2) (providing a right to appeal from order granting mandamus relief), and a writ of certiorari generally will not issue if the petitioner has "any plain, speedy and…”
Ohm v. Dist. Ct. (City Of Henderson) (Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “3d 572, 574 (2010) (holding that later events may render a once-live 1We note that Ohm could have appealed the district court's order denying mandamus relief, see NRS 2.090(2) (providing a right to appeal from order refusing mandamus relief), and a writ of certiorari generally…”
City of Reno v. Howard, 2014 NV 12 (Nev. 2014). · cites it 2× “" NRS 2.090(2). Further, "[a]n appeal may be taken from .”
Wilson v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2016). “NRS 2.090(2); NRAP 3A(b)(1); Ashokan v. State, Dep't of Ins.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 2.090(1) — 1 case
Mazzan v. State, 863 P.2d 1035 (Nev. 1993). “Appellant first relies on NRAP 3A(b)(2) and NRS 2.090 to support his contention that the challenged order is the “functional equivalent” of an order refusing to change the place of trial of a civil action.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 2.090(2) — 16 cases
City of North Las Vegas v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 147 P.3d 1109 (Nev. 2006). “First, is writ relief unavailable because an adequate legal remedy exists by means of an immediate appeal from the interlocutory order granting mandamus relief under NRS 2.090? Second, was Davis’s appeal barred because she did not meet NRS 278.”
Ashokan v. State, Dep't of Ins., 856 P.2d 244 (Nev. 1993). “NRS 2.090(2) provides that this court “has jurisdiction to review upon appeal .”
Ybarra v. State, 679 P.2d 797 (Nev. 1984). “2 NRS 2.090(2) and 2.110, as they read in 1980, required a defendant to appeal a denial of his motion for change of venue after voir dire but before continuation of trial.”
Mazzan v. State, 863 P.2d 1035 (Nev. 1993). “Appellant first relies on NRAP 3A(b)(2) and NRS 2.090 to support his contention that the challenged order is the “functional equivalent” of an order refusing to change the place of trial of a civil action.”
Chittenden v. Just. Ct. of Pahrump Twp., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 5 (Nev. 2024). “Therefore, both NRS 2.090(2) and NRS 177.015(3) confer upon this court appellate jurisdiction over the district court's order denying Chittenden's petition for a writ of mandamus.”
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.