Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.470 (2026)

Civil actions for damages resulting from racketeering

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 207.470  Civil actions for damages resulting from racketeering.

      1.  Any person who is injured in his or her business or property by reason of any violation of NRS 207.400 has a cause of action against a person causing such injury for three times the actual damages sustained. An injured person may also recover attorney’s fees in the trial and appellate courts and costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred. The defendant or any injured person in the action may demand a trial by jury in any civil action brought pursuant to this section. Any injured person has a claim to forfeited property or the proceeds derived therefrom and this claim is superior to any claim the State may have to the same property or proceeds if the injured person’s claim is asserted before a final decree is issued which grants forfeiture of the property or proceeds to the State.

      2.  A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the State in any criminal proceeding under NRS 205.322 or 207.400 estops the defendant in any subsequent civil action or proceeding from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense.

      3.  Any civil action or proceeding under this section must be instituted in the district court of the State in the county in which the prospective defendant resides or has committed any act which subjects him or her to criminal or civil liability under this section or NRS 205.322, 207.400 or 207.460.

      4.  Any civil remedy provided pursuant to this section is not exclusive of any other available remedy or penalty.

      (Added to NRS by 1983, 1501)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Hale v. Burkhardt, 764 P.2d 866 (Nev. 1988).
Hale v. Burkhardt, 764 P.2d 866 (Nev. 1988). · cites it 11× “Hale’s fourth cause of action 1 was brought under Nevada’s civil racketeering statute, NRS 207.470, and alleged that Burkhardt violated Nevada’s criminal racketeering statute, NRS 27.”
Siragusa v. Brown, 971 P.2d 801 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 6× “[7] Dismissal of the Nevada RICO claims In the instant complaint, Joanne set forth three claims against Brown seeking relief under Nevada's civil RICO statute, NRS 207.470. [8] The complaint asserts that Brown violated NRS 207.”
Allum v. Valley Bank of Nevada, 849 P.2d 297 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 5× “A potent provision, NRS 207.470(1), provides: Any person who is injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of NRS 207.”
WMCV PHASE 3, LLC v. Shushok & McCoy, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (D. Nev. 2010). · cites it 3× “RICO Under NRS § 207.470 The Nevada Supreme Court requires a plaintiff bringing a civil RICO claim under state law to articulate the factual allegations constituting the RICO claim directly under the portion of the Complaint dedicated to the RICO claim: A civil RICO pleading…”
Dummar v. Lummis, 543 F.3d 614 (10th Cir. 2008). “See Nev. Rev.Stat. § 207.470 (civil damages provision).”
Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 827 F. Supp. 1498 (D. Nev. 1993). · cites it 3× “First, under this Order, Plaintiffs are not without an ERISA remedy. The Co-Payor Class properly may file an Amended Complaint to state a claim under § 1132(a)(1)(B).”
Metabolic Rsch., Inc. v. Scott Ferrell, 693 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2012). “See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 207.470 (allowing treble damages for racketeering in aid of extortion).”
Century Sur. Co. v. Prince, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1182 (D. Nev. 2017). “Century’s first claim is brought under the Nevada Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) per NRS 207.470. (Id. at 12-18). Century brings a second claim for civil conspiracy, alleging that defendants Prince, Ranalli, and Esparza engaged in a “bad faith…”
Cummings v. Charter Hosp. of Las Vegas, Inc., 896 P.2d 1137 (Nev. 1995). “Under NRS 207.470, a civil action may be brought by any person injured as a result of racketeering activity.”
Brown v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins., 777 P.2d 361 (Nev. 1989). “This tends to make the award appear to be a sort of fine, imposed by the jury, rather than an assessment of “actual damages sustained,” as required under NRS 207.470(1). The jury’s verdict, finding that State Savings was damaged in the amount of $100,000.”
Seres v. Lerner, 102 P.3d 91 (Nev. 2004). “215 or NRS 207.470 upon the felon’s entitlement to publication proceeds, this language only defines the nature of a victim’s liability claim.”
Wingen v. Ventrum Energy Corp. (D. Nev. 2019). · cites it 4× “” 25 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.470 (emphasis added).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.470(1) — 4 cases
Allum v. Valley Bank of Nevada, 849 P.2d 297 (Nev. 1993). “A potent provision, NRS 207.470(1), provides: Any person who is injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of NRS 207.”
Siragusa v. Brown, 971 P.2d 801 (Nev. 1998). “[7] Dismissal of the Nevada RICO claims In the instant complaint, Joanne set forth three claims against Brown seeking relief under Nevada's civil RICO statute, NRS 207.470. [8] The complaint asserts that Brown violated NRS 207.”
Brown v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins., 777 P.2d 361 (Nev. 1989). “This tends to make the award appear to be a sort of fine, imposed by the jury, rather than an assessment of “actual damages sustained,” as required under NRS 207.470(1). The jury’s verdict, finding that State Savings was damaged in the amount of $100,000.”
Wingen v. Ventrum Energy Corp. (D. Nev. 2019). “” 25 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.470 (emphasis added).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.470(2) — 1 case
Hale v. Burkhardt, 764 P.2d 866 (Nev. 1988). “Hale’s fourth cause of action 1 was brought under Nevada’s civil racketeering statute, NRS 207.470, and alleged that Burkhardt violated Nevada’s criminal racketeering statute, NRS 27.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.470(3) — 1 case
Combs (D. Nev. 2025).
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.