Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 279 - REDEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITIES

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 279.609

Limitations on actions to question validity of redevelopment plan or amendment

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 279.609  Limitations on actions to question validity of redevelopment plan or amendment.  Any action questioning the validity of:

      1.  Any redevelopment plan or amendment to a redevelopment plan;

      2.  The adoption or approval of that plan or amendment; or

      3.  Any of the findings or determinations of the agency or the legislative body in connection with that plan,

Ê may only be brought after the adoption of the plan or amendment or within 90 days after the date of adoption of the ordinance adopting or amending the plan.

      (Added to NRS by 1985, 2068)

PROJECTS IN CITIES WHOSE POPULATION IS 500,000 OR MORE

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: City of Las Vegas Downtown Redevelopment Agency v. Pappas
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Las Vegas Downtown Redevelopment Agency v. Pappas (2003) nev · cites it 10× “The district court concluded: (1) the construction of the garage did not preclude the Pappases from contesting the project's public purpose; (2) the ninety-day statute of limitations in NRS 279.609 did not preclude judicial review of the taking; (3) the Agency lacked authority…”
Hantges v. City of Henderson (2005) nev · cites it 5× “NRS 279.609, however, provides for actions questioning the validity of an agency’s findings or determinations in connection with a redevelopment plan.”
Mesagate Homeowners' Ass'n v. City of Fernley (2008) nev · cites it 2× “9 In Hantges, we based standing primarily on NRS 279.609, which recognizes and places time limitations on the availability of actions questioning the validity of redevelopment plans.”
City of Las Vegas Downtown Redevelopment Agency v. Crockett (2001) nev · cites it 2× “598 (prohibiting the approval of any plan "unless it contains adequate safeguards that the work of redevelopment will be carried out pursuant to the plan"). [34] See NRS 279.580(1) (providing that "[t]he legislative body shall consider the redevelopment plan submitted by the…”
Citizens for Cold Springs v. City of Reno (2009) nev “The statute at issue, NRS 279.609, provided for actions questioning the validity of an agency’s findings or determinations regarding redevelopment plans.”
Stockmeier v. Nevada Department of Corrections Psychological Review Panel (2006) nev “3d 848, 850 (2005) (standing under NRS 279.609); RTTC Communications v. Saratoga Flier, 121 Nev.”
RENO REAL ESTATE DEVEL., LLC v. SCENIC NEVADA, INC. C/W 87549 (2025) nev “848, 850 (2005) (redevelopment plans under NRS 279.609). In cases where standing was not conferred under statute, this court has required that the challenger have a beneficial interest in challenging the land use.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 279.609(3) — 1 case
Hantges v. City of Henderson (2005) nev “NRS 279.609, however, provides for actions questioning the validity of an agency’s findings or determinations in connection with a redevelopment plan.”
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.