NRS
268.020 Demands and claims to be presented within 6 months;
certification.
1. All demands and accounts against any
incorporated city in this state, must be presented to the city council of the
city, in writing, within 6 months from the time the demands or accounts became
due.
2. Claims against any incorporated city
for property damage, personal injuries and any other claim arising out of a
tort must be certified by the claimant before presentation to the city council.
No other claim or account need be certified. The certification required by this
subsection must be in substantially the following form: “I hereby certify that
the above and foregoing claim against the City of ........, State of Nevada, is
just and reasonable, and that the claim is now due, owing and unpaid.”
3. No demand or account against any
incorporated city in this state may be audited, considered, allowed or paid by
the city council or any officer or officers of the incorporated city unless the
provisions of subsection 1 are strictly complied with.
4. No demand, account or claim which has
once been rejected may be reconsidered or allowed by the same or any
subsequently elected or appointed city council of the same city.
[1:23:1929; NCL § 1259] + [2:23:1929; NCL § 1260] +
[3:23:1929; NCL § 1261]—(NRS A 1963,
27; 1981,
1887)
Notes of Decisions
Turner v. Staggs, 510 P.2d 879 (Nev. 1973).
· cites it 2× “255, NRS 268.020 and, perhaps, others. Barney v.”
Derouen v. City of Reno, 491 P.2d 989 (Nev. 1971).
· cites it 9× “In support of this contention he argues that NRS 268.020 is unconstitutional because it is in direct conflict with Art.”
Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Cnty. of Clark, 643 F. Supp. 93 (D. Nev. 1986).
· cites it 3× “2d 11 (1984), the City of Sparks refused to pay L-M Architects, presumably for architectural services rendered the City because L-M did not comply with NRS 268.020, which reads: “1. All demands and accounts against any incorporated city in this state, must be presented to the…”
City of Boulder City v. Miles, 449 P.2d 1003 (Nev. 1969).
· cites it 3× “Our sole concern is whether the city claim statute, NRS 268.020, precludes liability of City to the respondents.”
Kaminski Ex Rel. Kaminski v. Woodbury, 462 P.2d 45 (Nev. 1969).
· cites it 2× “255, inclusive, or against a city without complying with the requirements of NRS 268.020, or against an unincorporated town without complying with the provisions of NRS 269.”
Hardgrave v. State Ex Rel. State High. Dep't, 389 P.2d 249 (Nev. 1964).
· cites it 2× “Perhaps there are situations (budgeting, investigation) concerning which the legislature would desire to have specific procedural requirements in addition to those involved in an ordinary action at law. If the legislature chooses to impose such additional requirements, the…”
L-M Architects, Inc. v. City of Sparks, 683 P.2d 11 (Nev. 1984).
· cites it 2× “, because L-M failed to present a timely demand in accord with NRS 268.020. 1 L-M did not comply with the statutes, but it claims that the statute is unconstitutional because it discriminates against L-M and other contract claimants against municipalities and is a violation of…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 268.020(1) — 1 case
Derouen v. City of Reno, 491 P.2d 989 (Nev. 1971).
“In support of this contention he argues that NRS 268.020 is unconstitutional because it is in direct conflict with Art.”
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.