Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 22.030 (2026)

Summary punishment of contempt committed in immediate view and presence of court; affidavit or statement to be filed when contempt committed outside immediate view and presence of court; disqualification of judge

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 22.030 Summary punishment of contempt committed in immediate view and presence of court; affidavit or statement to be filed when contempt committed outside immediate view and presence of court; disqualification of judge.

1. If a contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court or judge at chambers, the contempt may be punished summarily. If the court or judge summarily punishes a person for a contempt pursuant to this subsection, the court or judge shall enter an order that:

(a) Recites the facts constituting the contempt in the immediate view and presence of the court or judge;

(b) Finds the person guilty of the contempt; and

2. If a contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court or judge at chambers, an affidavit must be presented to the court or judge of the facts constituting the contempt, or a statement of the facts by the masters or arbitrators.

3. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if a contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, the judge of the court in whose contempt the person is alleged to be shall not preside at the trial of the contempt over the objection of the person. The provisions of this subsection do not apply in:

(a) Any case where a final judgment or decree of the court is drawn in question and such judgment or decree was entered in such court by a predecessor judge thereof 10 years or more preceding the bringing of contempt proceedings for the violation of the judgment or decree.

(b) Any proceeding described in subsection 1 of NRS 3.223, whether or not a family court has been established in the judicial district.

[1911 CPA § 454; A 1913, 117; 1951, 448]—(NRS A 1999, 2021)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Detwiler Vs. Dist. Ct. (baker Boyer Nat'l Bank), 2021 NV 18 (Nev. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Detwiler Vs. Dist. Ct. (baker Boyer Nat'l Bank), 2021 NV 18 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 12× “Nothing in this opinion should be read to affect the court's authority to impose summary sanctions for direct contempt under NRS 22.030(1). "Direct contempts that occur in the court's presence may be immediately adjudged and sanctioned summarily, and, except for serious criminal…”

Awad v. Wright, 794 P.2d 713 (Nev. 1990). · cites it 12× “On February 22, 1989, Awad filed a peremptory challenge objecting to Judge Shearing’s presiding over the contempt proceedings. NRS 22.030(3) clearly applies to the facts of this case, and the proper objection was timely and properly made.”

Houston v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 135 P.3d 1269 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 9× “1 In that case, we considered when a district court’s oral order must be written, signed and filed before becoming effective and noted that “nothing in this opinion precludes a court from summarily punishing a party who commits contempt in the court’s immediate presence,…”

Div. of Child & Fam. Servs. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 92 P.3d 1239 (Nev. 2004). “However, nothing in this opinion precludes a court from summarily punishing a party who commits contempt in the court’s immediate presence, pursuant to NRS 22.030. 34 Additionally, oral court orders pertaining to case management issues, scheduling, administrative matters or…”

Whitehead v. Nevada Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 873 P.2d 946 (Nev. 1994). · cites it 2× “" See "Respondent's Opposition to Motion for an Order to Show Cause and Objection to this Court Presiding Over this Matter, NRS 22.030(3)" at 2 (emphasis added). Further, the Commission insisted: "Simply stated, judicial commission rules do not give this Court the authority to…”

Nuveda, LLC Vs. Dist. Ct. (terry), 2021 NV 54 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 42× “Original petition for a writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to transfer indirect contempt proceedings to another judge under NRS 22.030(3). Petition denied. Law Office of Mitchell Stipp and Mitchell Stipp, Las…”

Paley v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Washoe, 310 P.3d 590 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 2× “NRS 22.030(1). 3 And “when we say immediate view and *705 presence of the court we mean in the ocular view of the court.”

In Re: Jud. Discipline of Rena Hughes, 2020 NV 46 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “2 (1994) (observing that only direct contempt, which occurs "in the coures presence[,] may be immediately adjudged and sanctioned summarily"); see also NRS 22.030. Contempt leads to sanctions that may be either criminal, serving to punish past misbehavior, or civil, seeking to…”

Gipson v. State, 714 P.2d 1007 (Nev. 1986). · cites it 2× “Mitchell to appear before us on March 13, 1986, to explain his conduct in this matter.”

Houston v. DIST. CT., 135 P.3d 1269 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 9× “[1] In that case, we considered when a district court's oral order must be written, signed and filed before becoming effective and noted that "nothing in this opinion precludes a court from summarily punishing a party who commits contempt in the court's immediate presence,…”

State, Dep't of Health v. Dist. Ct. (Nev. 2023). · cites it 10× “NRS 22.030(1). In direct contempt, the events occurred "in the immediate view and presence of the court," so the court requires no additional information in order to enter a sanction.”

Bohannon v. Dist. Ct. (Bohannon) (Nev. 2017). · cites it 2× “While a written order is not required by statute in instances of indirect contempt, see NRS 22.030, the lack of a formal written order greatly complicates this court's review of this matter.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 22.030(1) — 7 cases

Detwiler Vs. Dist. Ct. (baker Boyer Nat'l Bank), 2021 NV 18 (Nev. 2021). “Nothing in this opinion should be read to affect the court's authority to impose summary sanctions for direct contempt under NRS 22.030(1). "Direct contempts that occur in the court's presence may be immediately adjudged and sanctioned summarily, and, except for serious criminal…”

Houston v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 135 P.3d 1269 (Nev. 2006). “1 In that case, we considered when a district court’s oral order must be written, signed and filed before becoming effective and noted that “nothing in this opinion precludes a court from summarily punishing a party who commits contempt in the court’s immediate presence,…”

Paley v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Washoe, 310 P.3d 590 (Nev. 2013). “NRS 22.030(1). 3 And “when we say immediate view and *705 presence of the court we mean in the ocular view of the court.”

Houston v. DIST. CT., 135 P.3d 1269 (Nev. 2006). “[1] In that case, we considered when a district court's oral order must be written, signed and filed before becoming effective and noted that "nothing in this opinion precludes a court from summarily punishing a party who commits contempt in the court's immediate presence,…”

State, Dep't of Health v. Dist. Ct. (Nev. 2023). “NRS 22.030(1). In direct contempt, the events occurred "in the immediate view and presence of the court," so the court requires no additional information in order to enter a sanction.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 22.030(1)(a) — 2 cases

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 22.030(2) — 4 cases

Awad v. Wright, 794 P.2d 713 (Nev. 1990). “On February 22, 1989, Awad filed a peremptory challenge objecting to Judge Shearing’s presiding over the contempt proceedings. NRS 22.030(3) clearly applies to the facts of this case, and the proper objection was timely and properly made.”

Blandino v. Dist. Ct. (City of Las Vegas) (Nev. 2016).

Bohannon v. Dist. Ct. (Bohannon) (Nev. 2017). “While a written order is not required by statute in instances of indirect contempt, see NRS 22.030, the lack of a formal written order greatly complicates this court's review of this matter.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 22.030(3) — 5 cases

Whitehead v. Nevada Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 873 P.2d 946 (Nev. 1994). “" See "Respondent's Opposition to Motion for an Order to Show Cause and Objection to this Court Presiding Over this Matter, NRS 22.030(3)" at 2 (emphasis added). Further, the Commission insisted: "Simply stated, judicial commission rules do not give this Court the authority to…”

Nuveda, LLC Vs. Dist. Ct. (terry), 2021 NV 54 (Nev. 2021). “Original petition for a writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to transfer indirect contempt proceedings to another judge under NRS 22.030(3). Petition denied. Law Office of Mitchell Stipp and Mitchell Stipp, Las…”

Gipson v. State, 714 P.2d 1007 (Nev. 1986). “Mitchell to appear before us on March 13, 1986, to explain his conduct in this matter.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 22.030(l)(a) — 1 case

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.