Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 244.245 (2026)
Recovery of costs in action against county
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 244.245 Recovery of costs in action against county. If a party suing a county recovers in the
action more than the board of county commissioners allowed, or offered to
allow, the board and the county auditor shall allow the amount of the judgment
and costs as a just claim against the county. If the party suing does not
recover more than the board and the county auditor offered to allow the party,
then costs must be recovered against the party by the county, and may be
deducted from the demand.
[24:80:1865; B § 3092; BH § 1964; C § 2126; RL § 1523; NCL § 1956]—(NRS A 1981, 1887)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1963–1986 · leading case: Turner v. Staggs, 510 P.2d 879 (Nev. 1973).
Turner v. Staggs, 510 P.2d 879 (Nev. 1973). “The complaint against Clark County was dismissed on motion for summary judgment on August 6, 1971, for failure to present a timely claim pursuant to NRS 244.245 and NRS 244.250. [3] See also, NRS 41.”
Alper v. Clark Cnty., 571 P.2d 810 (Nev. 1977). “: The principal issue presented is whether NRS 244.245 1 and NRS 244.250, 2 the Six Months’ Claims Statutes, apply to a *571 claim for damages in an inverse condemnation proceeding brought by a property owner against a county.”
Lunday Ex Rel. Lunday v. Vogelmann, 213 N.W.2d 904 (Iowa 1973). “2d 879, 882 (1973): "* * * [W]e believe that the notice of claim requirements found in NRS 244.245 and NRS 244.250 as applied to governmental torts deny equal protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”
Barney v. Cnty. of Clark, 389 P.2d 392 (Nev. 1964). “The County of Clark’s motion for an involuntary dismissal of the action was granted upon the ground that the complaint failed to allege that plaintiff had filed a certified claim with the board of county commissioners and with the county auditor as required by NRS 244.245 and…”
Rice v. Clark Cnty., 382 P.2d 605 (Nev. 1963). “The next question concerns the presentment of appellant's claim to the county in accordance with the following statutes: NRS 244.245: "1. No person shall sue a county in any case for any demand, unless he shall first present his claim or demand to the board of county…”
Hardgrave v. State Ex Rel. State High. Dep't, 389 P.2d 249 (Nev. 1964). “Clark County, supra, the applicability of Article 4, § 22, to the facts of that case was neither raised nor was the question raised whether the legislature in its enactment of NRS 244.245 and 244.250, statutes which provide the conditions for filing suits against a county,…”
Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Cnty. of Clark, 643 F. Supp. 93 (D. Nev. 1986). “In 1980 NRS 244.245 (later amended 1981 Stats, p.”
Kaminski Ex Rel. Kaminski v. Woodbury, 462 P.2d 45 (Nev. 1969). “031 against a county without complying with the requirements of NRS 244.245 to 244.255, inclusive, or against a city without complying with the requirements of NRS 268.”
Jiminez v. State of Nevada, Nevada Dep't of Prisons, 644 P.2d 1023 (Nev. 1982). “Although our ruling in Turner specifically concerned NRS 244.245 and 244.250 — claim statutes relating to actions against a county — that decision clearly had the effect of overturning other governmental claims statutes as well.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 244.245(1) — 1 case
Alper v. Clark Cnty., 571 P.2d 810 (Nev. 1977). “: The principal issue presented is whether NRS 244.245 1 and NRS 244.250, 2 the Six Months’ Claims Statutes, apply to a *571 claim for damages in an inverse condemnation proceeding brought by a property owner against a county.”
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.