Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.030 (2026)
Burning or aiding and abetting burning of property with intent to defraud insurer; penalty
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 205.030 Burning or aiding and abetting burning of property with intent
to defraud insurer; penalty. A
person who willfully and with the intent to injure or defraud the insurer sets
fire to or burns or attempts to set fire to or burn, or who causes to be burned
or who aids, counsels or procures the burning of any building, structure or
personal property of whatsoever class or character, whether the property of the
person or of another, which is at the time insured by any person, company or
corporation against loss or damage by fire, is guilty of a category B felony
and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of
not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be
further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000. In addition to any other
penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.
[1911 C&P § 361; A 1927, 228; 1943, 181; 1943 NCL § 10310]—(NRS A 1967, 493; 1979, 1440; 1995, 1214)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1973–2018 · leading case: Johnson v. Sheriff, Washoe Cnty., 511 P.2d 1051 (Nev. 1973).
Johnson v. Sheriff, Washoe Cnty., 511 P.2d 1051 (Nev. 1973). “020) and arson with intent to defraud an insurer (NRS 205.030) were dismissed against appellant.”
Lee (Gloria) v. State, No. 72653 (Nev. Apr. 10, 2018). “NRS 205.030. We need not address whether insurance fraud contains the same elements as these offenses because the arson offenses were completed upon the setting of the fires and insurance fraud was alleged to have occurred afterward.”
Lee v. State, 415 P.3d 22 (Nev. 2018). “NRS 205.030. We need not address whether insurance fraud contains the same elements as these offenses because the arson offenses were completed upon the setting of the fires and insurance fraud was alleged to have occurred afterward.”
Babich v. Sheriff, 514 P.2d 1293 (Nev. 1973). “020), and burning insured property (NRS 205.030). Petitions for habeas relief challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to show probable cause, contending that the only direct evidence against appellants was that given by a federal narcotic agent who over objection, testified…”
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.