Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 220 - REVISION OF STATUTES
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 220.170 (2026)

Certification of NRS and supplements; citation of NRS as official codified version of Statutes of Nevada and prima facie evidence of law; form of citations to NRS

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 220.170  Certification of NRS and supplements; citation of NRS as official codified version of Statutes of Nevada and prima facie evidence of law; form of citations to NRS.

      1.  The master copy of Nevada Revised Statutes, as printed and bound in accordance with NRS 220.130, must contain a certificate of the Director of the Statute Revision Commission that the Director has compared each section thereof with the original section of the enrolled bill by which Nevada Revised Statutes was adopted and enacted, and that the sections in the published edition are correctly copied. All other printed and bound copies of Nevada Revised Statutes must contain a copy of the certificate.

      2.  Each set of replacement or supplementary pages, prepared in accordance with NRS 220.160 and published before January 1, 1963, for inclusion in the master copy of Nevada Revised Statutes, must be accompanied by a certificate of the Director of the Statute Revision Commission, and each set published after January 1, 1963, by a certificate of the Legislative Counsel, that such person has compared each section thereof with the original section of the enrolled bill, and that, with the exception of the changes authorized by law, the sections set forth in the replacement or supplementary pages are correctly copied. All other sets of replacement or supplementary pages must be accompanied by a copy of the certificate. All such certificates must be inserted in the bound copies of Nevada Revised Statutes in chronological order immediately following the initial certificate of the Director.

      3.  Copies of Nevada Revised Statutes, as printed, published, revised, supplemented and certified in accordance with this chapter, constitute the official codified version of Statutes of Nevada and may be cited as prima facie evidence of the law in all of the courts of this state. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, that evidence may be rebutted by proof that the statutes cited differ from the official Statutes of Nevada. That evidence may not be rebutted by proof that the statutes differ from the official Statutes of Nevada in a manner authorized pursuant to NRS 220.120.

      4.  Nevada Revised Statutes and its component parts may be cited as follows:

      (a) Nevada Revised Statutes: NRS

      (b) A title: title 00 of NRS

      (c) A chapter: chapter 000 of NRS

      (d) A section: NRS 000.000

      [13:304:1951; A 1953, 388]—(NRS A 1957, 5; 1963, 1024; 1967, 35; 1989, 1167; 2003, 328)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: Halverson v. Miller, 186 P.3d 893 (Nev. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Halverson v. Miller, 186 P.3d 893 (Nev. 2008). “NRS 220.170(3) states that while the Nevada Re *487 vised Statutes may be cited as prima facie evidence of the law, it “may be rebutted by proof that the statutes cited differ from the official Statutes of Nevada.”
Taylor (Donald) Vs. State, 472 P.3d 195 (Nev. 2020). “120(3); NRS 220.170(3); 1963 Nev. Stat., ch. 403, preface, at 1011.”
Bradford v. Sisolak (D. Nev. 2021). · cites it 18× “Claim 3 17 In his third cause of action, Bradford alleges that NRS 220.170(3) is overbroad on its face. 18 ECF No.”
Brewer v. Reubart (D. Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “’ NRS § 220.170(3). The Nevada Revised 9 Statutes consist of enacted laws which have been classified, codified, and annotated by 10 the Legislative Counsel.”
Barral v. Garrett (D. Nev. 2023). · cites it 2× “010 is invalid under NRS § 220.170(3) given 10 that it does not reference the original Statutes of Nevada, and (3) the Nevada Revised 11 Statutes lack an enactment clause and are thus unconstitutional and void.”
Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Messina (Nev. 2016). “However, the actual laws of Nevada are contained in the Statutes of Nevada and the Statutes of Nevada control to the extent there are differences between the two that the Legislative Counsel was not authorized to make See NRS 220.170(3); see also NRS 220.120 (noting that the…”
Newton, Jr. (Charles) v. State (Nev. 2017). “See NRS 220.170(3). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A .”
Bradford v. Sisolak (D. Nev. 2023). “20 Plaintiff further alleges that NRS 220.170(3) violates the Equal Protection 21 Clause.”
Goodsell v. Teachers Health Trust (D. Nev. 2024). “2008) (en banc) (quoting NRS 15 § 220.170(3)). The limitation that § 287.”
City of Las Vegas v. Munson (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 28 (Nev. 2025). “See NRS 220.170(3) (stating copies of the Nevada Revised Statutes "may be cited as prima facie evidence of the law," but that such "evidence may be rebutted by proof that the statutes cited differ from the official Statutes of Nevada"); see also Halverson v.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 220.170(3) — 10 cases
Halverson v. Miller, 186 P.3d 893 (Nev. 2008). “NRS 220.170(3) states that while the Nevada Re *487 vised Statutes may be cited as prima facie evidence of the law, it “may be rebutted by proof that the statutes cited differ from the official Statutes of Nevada.”
Taylor (Donald) Vs. State, 472 P.3d 195 (Nev. 2020). “120(3); NRS 220.170(3); 1963 Nev. Stat., ch. 403, preface, at 1011.”
Bradford v. Sisolak (D. Nev. 2021). “Claim 3 17 In his third cause of action, Bradford alleges that NRS 220.170(3) is overbroad on its face. 18 ECF No.”
Brewer v. Reubart (D. Nev. 2022). “’ NRS § 220.170(3). The Nevada Revised 9 Statutes consist of enacted laws which have been classified, codified, and annotated by 10 the Legislative Counsel.”
Barral v. Garrett (D. Nev. 2023). “010 is invalid under NRS § 220.170(3) given 10 that it does not reference the original Statutes of Nevada, and (3) the Nevada Revised 11 Statutes lack an enactment clause and are thus unconstitutional and void.”
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.